lU 

1226.5 

R8^D 


A 

A 

0 
0 

ucso 

<= 

1 

1 

REGI' 

9 
6 

ONALLII 

2 

6 
6 

=  Cli 

9 

so       3 


>§■         ^A 


v^^l    |-<-^ 


%ojnv3jo^ 


"^laoNVSoi^ 


o 


'^OJIIVJJO^ 


^OFCAllFOff^ 


,-\WEUNIVER%. 
>- 


^lOSAKCELfJv^ 


<riliONVS01^        ■%a3AINn3V>^ 


<;,OFCAllFOft)t^ 


^^Aavaani^ 


% 


J 


^lOSANCElfj> 
o 


■^/^aaAiNdJUV 


^^•IIBRARY^?/^ 


-^tLIBRARY(9/r 


-^^OdllVJJO^* 


^<!/ojnvojo>^ 


^WEUNIVERy/A 


<rjiJOKVsoi^ 


% 


J 


^lOSANGELfT^ 
o 


^OFCAIIFOI?^ 


^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


%a3AiNn]UV^        ^^AHvaan-A^ 


^WEUNIVER5-/A 


<ril33NVS01^ 


^^t-LIBRARYQ^ 


so      2 

P       %0JIW3JO'^ 


^MEUfJIVER%. 


<^1]DNVS01^ 


^^lOS■ANCELfJ> 


%a3AiNn-3WV^ 


WvtUBRARYQ^, 
^  ^    . . — -  ^ 


^OJIIVJ-JO"^ 


^OFCAIIFOft)^ 


AWEliNIVER5//i 


^lOSANCEtfjv. 


<^i3DNvsoi^     "^/^aaAiNtimv 


^OFCALIFOff^ 


^^Awaaiii^ 


^lOSANCElfj^. 
o 


s  ^ 


"^aaAiNn-awv^ 


1  -Tl 


^lOSANCEl£rx 


'^/Sa3AIN(l3WV^ 


^tllBRARYQc. 


^tUBRARY(?/^ 


^<yOJIlV3JO>^ 
^OFCALIFOi?^ 


^OFCAIIFO% 


^^Aavaani^ 


^^Aavnan^' 


^WEUNIVERi-ZA 


<(5]3QNVS01^ 
AMEUNIVER5/A 


<m3QNVS01^ 


J^^ 


%^o^]  - 


x.,'-*-!-^*  iX(?. 


tc^ji^:^e^S>(^:^3B:::^:^:^g,^^ 


?1 


<d 


^ 
'^^ 


(^ 

•^ 


THE    DUTY 


X 


y- 


.^r 


COLUMBIA  COLLEGE 


5v: 


^ 


TO   THE   COMMUNITY, 


II 


k' 


AND  ITS  EIGHT  TO  EXCLUDE  UNITARIANS  FROM  ITS 
PROFESSORSHIPS  OF  PHYSICAL  SCIENCK 


CONSIDERKD   BT 


ONE  OF   ITS  TRUSTEES, 


NEW  YORK: 

JOHN   F.  TROW,   PRINTER,   49   ANN    STREET. 

1864. 


6i 


^ 


y 
^ 


1^ 


?N£ 


^I^^^^I^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^'^ 


THE    DUTY 


COLUMBIA    COLLEGE 


TO   THE   COMMUNITY, 


AND    ITS   RIGHT   TO   EXCLUDE    UNITARIANS    FROM   ITS 
PROFESSORSHIPS  OF  PHYSICAL  SCIENCE, 


CONSIDERED   BY 


ONE    OF    ITS   TRUSTEES. 


NEW-YORK: 
JOHN   F.  TROW,  PRINTER,  49   ANN   STREET. 

1854. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1854,  by 

SAMUEL  B.  RUGGLES, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  ol  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New-York. 


^ 


<\ 


NOTE. 

The  following  communication  embraces,  with  some  corrections  and 
additions,  the  material  portions  of  a  letter  recently  addressed  by  tbo 
writer  to  one  of  his  colleagues  in  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Columbia 

It''  is  due  to  the  gentleman  addressed  by  that  letter  to  state, 
that  in  acknowledging  its  receipt,  he  declared  himself  unable  to  per- 
ceive the  applicability  of  a  large  portion  of  it  to  himself,  the  pro- 
priety of  addressing  it  to  him,  or  the  object  of  so  addressing  it. 

The  object  of  the  letter  was  solely  to  invite  his  co-operation,  as  a 
co-Trustee  ;  1st,  In  enlarging  the  scope  and  invigorating  the  action 
of  the  College;  2d,  In  remedying  the  evils  suffered  by  the  College 
from  its  neglect  of  Physical  Science ;  3d,  In  preventing  the  exclu- 
sion of  any  candidate  from  the  Professorship  of  Physical  Science,  on 
account  of  his  religious  tenets. 

The  writer  can  see  no  breach  of  propriety,  in  addressing  this  or 
^  any   other   communication  in    respectful   language    to   any  of  his 

$  colleagues,  on  any  matter  connected  with  the  great  public  trust  they 

have  undertaken  to  execute. 

He  therefore  presents  his  views  in  the  present  form,  for  more 
convenient  examination  by  others  of  his  colleagues,  and  he  invites 
them  in  return  to  express  any  opinions  they  may  entertain,  if  his 
own  shall  seem  erroneous. 

Such  an  interchange,  if  it  produce  no  other  effect,  will  serve  at 
least  to  define  and  limit  the  proper  responsibility  of  each. 

S.  B.  E. 

March  27,  1854. 


New-Yoek,  February  28th,  1854. 

Dear  Sir  : 

The  friendship  that  has  so  long  and  so  pleasantly 
subsisted  between  us,  furnishes  a  sufficient  apology  for 
my  proposing  an  interchange  of  opinions,  on  a  subject 
in  which  we  have  an  equal  interest,  and  the  same  re- 
sponsibility, and  as  to  which,  members  of  our  Board 
have  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  differ.  You  will  under- 
stand, at  once,  that  I  refer  to  Columbia  College,  of 
which  we  have  l)oth  been  Trustees,  for  so  many  years. 

The  sincere  respect  I  feel  for  your  character  and  mo- 
tives, will  surely  prevent  my  saying  any  thing  needlessly 
to  give  offence,  and  I  cannot  but  think,  we  are  sufficient- 
ly alike  in  age,  professional  occupation,  religious  belief, 
moral  and  mental  habits,  and,  above  all,  in  our  love  of 
truth  and  justice,  to  agree  sooner  or  later  on  any  ques- 
tion involving  either. 

What  then,  is  the  matter  in  difference  in  our  Board  ? 
and  may  not  a  full  and  candid  examination  of  the  facts 
and  principles  involved,  serve  to  bring  us  more  nearly 
together  ? 

The  subject  which  ostensibly  divides  us,  is  the 
expediency  of  electing  Wolcott  Gibbs  to  the  Pro- 
fessorship of  Chemistry,  and  Natural  and  Experimental 
Philosophy,  now  vacant.      But  under  this,   lie  much 


deeper  questions, — the  prominence  the  College  ought 
to  give  to  the  teaching  of  Physical  Science, — the 
relation  it  bears  to  Religious  truth, — the  necessity 
and  right  to  inquire  into  the  religious  creed  of  the 
teacher, — and  if  that  creed  differ  essentially  from  our 
own,  whether  we.  Trustees  created  by  law,  to  perform 
duties  defined  by  law,  are  allowed  or  forbidden  by  law, 
to  take  that  difference  into  account, — and  lastly  whether 
in  so  doing,  silently  or  avowedly,  we  shall  or  shall  not 
commit  a  violation  of  law  and  a  breach  of  trust  ? 

I  desire  to  state  my  views  plainly  and  distinctly  on 
these  questions,  and  shall  gladly  receive  yours  in 
return.  The  questions  are  momentous.  They  concern 
not  only  our  present  but  all  our  future  Professorships, 
and  not  only  the  College,  but  the  whole  community 
for  which  we  are  Trustees. 

During  all  the  period  in  which  we  have  acted 
together,  in  executing  this  trust,  no  questions  have 
come  before  us  approaching  these  in  importance, — 
and  now,  that  we  have  the  prospect  of  increased  wealth, 
and  a  wider  sphere  of  action,  it  is  of  tenfold  conse- 
quence, to  determine  aright  the  principles,  on  which 
we  shall  administer  the  great  trust  confided  to  us  by 
the  State,  for  the  education  of  the  People.  It  is  quite 
impossible  in  the  brief  sessions  of  our  Board,  to  discuss 
questions  like  these.  When  they  arise,  we  must  of 
necessity  adopt  some  other  mode  of  examining  them, 
and  those  of  our  body  not  on  its  committees,  must  neces- 
sarily address  themselves  to  their  colleagues  individ- 
ually. Our  duties  are  public  duties,  and  we  are  entitled 
to  communicate,  not  only  with  each  other,  but  with 
every  person  interested  in  their  discharge, 
f  In  the  first  place  then,  I  believe  it  to  be  our  duty 

to  elect  Dk.  Gibbs  to  this  Professorship,  because  he  is 


proved  to  be  pre-eminently  fit  for  it,  not  only  by 
nature,  intellect,  temper,  education,  manners,  social 
position  and  habits  of  life,  moral  and  mental, — but 
also  by  power  to  command  and  power  to  teacby  and 
above  all,  by  ambition  to  advance  tlie  branch  he 
teaches,  and  ability  to  do  so  with  vigor  and  persever- 
ance, manifested  already  in  the  results  of  his  investiga- 
tions, and  recognized  by  the  most  eminent  men  of 
Science  at  home  and  abroad. 

I  will  not  ask  you  again,  to  examine  the  mass  of 
documentary  evidence  now  before  us,  which  establishes 
these  propositions.  For  one,  I  should  be  governed  by  it, 
even  if  many  of  the  facts  were  not  within  my  own  per- 
sonal knowledge,  and  if  I  did  not  personally  know  many 
of  the  individuals,  who  certify  so  strongly  to  their  truth. 

These  gentlemen,  admittedly  the  most  distinguish- 
ed in  their  peculiar  department,  testify  to  us  of  mat- 
ters, which  they,  of  all  men,  know  best.  In  this  question, 
necessarily  occult  in  some  degree  to  us,  they  are  experts^ 
and  as  such  entitled  to  decide.  If  it  could  be  now  sub- 
mitted to  a  legal  tribunal,  their  evidence  would  be  con- 
clusive. Should  it  not  control  our  judgment  as 
Trustees,  bound  to  decide  impartially  all  questions 
arising  in  the  execution  of  our  trust  ? 

I  know  it  has  been  said,  that  admitting  De.  Gibbs 
to  possess  these  qualifications,  another  of  the  candi- 
dates may  and  actually  does  possess  them  all,  in 
equal  degree.  The  Scientific  world  which  knows 
them  both,  and  is  far  better  qualified  than  you  or 
I  can  be,  to  estimate  their  comparative  profes- 
sional merits,  thinks  otherwise,  and  the  general 
sentiment  and  voice  of  the  community  around  us,  con- 
firm that  opinion.  I  submit  that  in  a  question  like 
this,  involving  so  deeply  the  scientific    reputation  of 


the  College,  the  deliberate  opinion  of  eminent  men 
of  science,  ought  to  turn  the  scale,  ev^en  if  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  candidates  seemed  to  ns  equally  balanced. 

But  the  question  is  not  now,  between  the  pro- 
fessional merits  of  De.  Gibbs  and  those  of  any  opposing 
candidate,  for  at  our  last  meeting  the  friends  of  the 
candidate  most  prominent  in  opposition,  withdrew  his 
name  or  offered  to  do  so,  if  the  name  of  Dr.  Gibbs 
were  withdrawn  by  his  friends.  This  they  did  not 
do,  and  could  not  do,  believing  themselves  bound 
in  law  and  conscience,  to  vote  for  the  candidate  best 
fitted  for  the  place, — or  (to  state  it  in  legal  phrase)  to 
select  the  agent,  who  would  most  efficiently  execute 
an  important  portion  of  the  trust  they  had  assumed. 

Of  the  twenty  Trustees,  then  present,  ten  had  voted 
for  Dr.  Gibbs,  as  abundantly  proved  to  be  tit.  How 
could  they  withdraw  his  name,  and  vote  for  some 
other  candidate  whom  they  considered  less  fit,  and  per- 
haps did  not  know  to  be  fit  at  all  ?  That  those  who  had 
voted  for  his  competitor,  not  only  declined  on  that  occa- 
sion, to  vote  for  Dr.  Gibbs,  whose  professional  fitness 
had  been  so  conclusively  established,  but  avowed  their 
intention  to  look  about  for  some  other  candidate,  shows 
that  his  appointment  was  and  is  opposed,  on  other 
grounds. 

The  first  is,  that  his  appointment  has  been  unduly 
and  disrespectfully  urged  by  his  friends, — ^that  two  hun- 
dred of  our  alumni^  clerical  and  lay,  have  taken  the 
unusual  step  of  petitioning  us  to  appoint  him, — that 
some  of  the  parents  of  our  present  undergraduates 
have  concurred  in  that  petition, — that  newspaper  para- 
graphs have  appeared,  intemperately  and  indecorous- 
ly asserting  the  superiority  of  his  claims  to  the 
vacant  chair, — and  that  in  these  and  various  other 


forms,  there  has  been  an  "  outside  pressure  "  of  public 
opinion  in  his  favor,  in  which  it  does  not  become  us  to 
acquiesce,  and  which  our  official  dignity  requires  us  to 
resent,  by  electing  some  other  candidate. 

The  second  and  much  graver  objection  is,  that 
De.  Gibbs  is  a  "  Unitarian." 

I  shall  not  waste  much  of  your  time  or  my  own,  in 
discussing  the  first  of  these  questions.  Were  it  true, 
that  his  appointment  had  been  unduly  and  even  dis- 
respectfully urged  upon  us,  it  could  not  give  an  honest 
and  intelligent  Trustee  even  a  pretext  for  voting 
against  him. 

The  question  is  of  our  duty, — what  is  right,  and 
what  wrong,  in  executing  a  trust.  We  do  not  in- 
dividually own  the  endowment  of  Columbia  College. 
Our  title  to  it  is  purely  fiduciary.  We  hold  it  sim- 
ply in  trust,  to  promote  with  it,  to  our  best  ability, 
and  with  our  utmost  diligence,  certain  definite  ob- 
jects. In  accomplishing  these  objects,  is  it  not  j^lainly 
our  duty  to  select  the  agent,  shown  to  be  most  compe- 
tent ?  Have  we  the  right  to  choose  any  but  the  most 
competent,  because  his  friends  or  the  j^ublic  have 
annoyed  us,  by  their  too  urgent  representations  of  his 
merits  ? 

Our  position,  rights  and  duties,  are  the  same,  in 
principle,  with  those  of  a  trustee,  under  a  will  or  deed 
of  settlement.  The  only  difterence  is,  that  the  private 
trustee  deals  with  mere  material  interests,  and  can  com- 
mit no  breach  of  trust  which  the  law  will  not  at  once 
detect,  while  we  have  a  wider  range  of  duties,  in  which 
failure  and  fraud  are  practically  more  difficult  to  iden- 
tify. Our  discretion  is  larger,  but  not  the  less  a  legal 
discretion. 

An  austere  but  salutary  course  of  decisions  estab 


lishes  tlie  responsibility  of  the  private  trustee  for  any 
unlawful  exercise  of  his  power,  or  any  step  beyond  the 
course  prescribed  by  the  terms  of  his  trust.  What 
should  we  say  to  the  executor  or  trustee,  who  asked  us 
if  he  might  properly  invest  his  trust  fund  on  a  second 
rate  security,  or  commit  its  administration  to  a  second 
rate  agent,  because  his  co-trustee,  or  his  cestui-qiie- 
trust^  or  some  unknown  person,  had  unduly  and  dis- 
respectfully urged  on  him  another  course  ?  We  should 
advise  him  that  a  breach  of  trust  could  not  be  justified 
or  palliated,  by  any  violation  of  decorum  in  those  who 
disapproved  it. 

As  Trustees  of  Columbia  College,  we  have  nothing, 
and  can  have  nothing,  but  duties  to  perform.  Every 
vote  any  of  us  gives  on  any  question,  is  either  the  per- 
formance of  a  duty  or  a  breach  of  trust.  We  have  not,  I 
think,  any  corporate  capacity  to  receive  affronts,  or  any 
corporate  dignity  to  be  wounded.  Our  clear  duty  and 
office  are,  calmly  and  dispassionately  to  execute  our 
trust,  without  any  of  the  feelings,  preferences  or  resent- 
ments, which  modify  so  much  our  dealings  as  individu- 
als. I  know  it  is  possible  for  us,  to  vote  under  the 
influence  of  offence  at  "  outside  pressure,"  but  if  we  do, 
we  depart  as  widely  from  our  duty,  as  if  the  vote  were 
biassed  by  personal  affection  or  private  interest. 

But  I  utterly  deny,  that  either  De.  Gibbs  or  any  of 
his  friends  with  his  knowledge,  privity  or  assent,  has  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  used  any  undue  influence  or  dis- 
respectful means  whatever,  to  influence  our  judgment. 
On  the  contrary,  I  have  every  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  printing  of  his  testimonials,  the  petition  of 
the  alumni  for  his  appointment,  the  recommendation 
by  the  parents  of  our  undergraduates,  and  the  news- 
paper paragraphs,  were  in  no  way  suggested,  instigated 


or  encouraged  by  him.  I  know,  that  he  has  borne 
himself,  throughout  this  exciting  controversy,  which  has 
so  aroused  his  friends  and  the  community,  with  singular 
composure,  propriety  and  dignity, — without  one  word 
of  reproach,  displeasure  or  anxiety, — exhibiting  always 
and  under  all  attacks,  that  perfect  self  control  and  self- 
sustaining  power,  that  stand  conspicuous  among  his 
qualifications  for  the  Professor's  chair. 

As  to  the  undue  urgency  of  his  friends,  it  may  well 
be,  that  some  of  us  (including  Dk.  King,  the  President 
of  the  College)  may  have  expressed  an  earnest  desire  for 
his  appointment.  Why  should  we  not  do  so,  if  we  be- 
lieve his  qualifications  pre-eminent  ?  Why  are  we  not 
bound  as  honest  men  to  do  so,  if  we  believe  him  best 
qualified  of  all  the  candidates?  As  to  the  news- 
paper articles,  no  member  of  our  Board,  to  my  know- 
ledge or  belief,  is  in  any  way  responsible  for  them, 
and  were  the  fact  otherwise,  it  would  hav^e  no  bear- 
ing whatever  upon  the  question  we  have  to  decide.. 
Their  appearance  proves  only,  that  public  feeling,, 
whether  justly  or  unjustly,  is  certainly  enlisted  in  the 
matter,  to  some  extent,  and  especially  in  regard  to 
the  religious  opposition  which  Dr.  Gibbs  has  encoun^ 
tered. 

Without  allowing  these  or  any  other  manifestations 
of  public  023inion,  unduly  to  control  our  action,  we  can 
hardly  close  our  eyes  upon  the  fact,  that  the  comuju- 
nity  is  excited  and  oftended  by  the  objection  to  Dr. 
Gibbs,  secondly  above  stated,  that  he  is  a  "  Unita- 
rian." 

The  questions  involved  in  that  objection  are  of 
exceeding  gravity.  Their  decision  must  affect  deeply 
and  permanently,  not  only  the  rights  of  the  commu- 
nity, but  the  condition  and  character  of  the  College,  if 
not  its  very  existence.   I  shall  therefore  examine  the  ob- 


10 

jection  carefully  and  conscientiously, — sincerely  desir- 
ing to  avoid  offence, — but  with  entire  determination, 
to  seek  and  follow  the  path  of  duty. 

What  then  are  its  merits  ?  How  far  is  it  reasonable, 
— how  far  lawful? 

To  answer  this,  we  must  inquire,  What  are  the  objects 
of  the  College,  and  what  its  necessities  ?  From  these, 
we  can  unerringly  deduce  our  duties.  I  shall  not  ask, 
what  are  our  "  rights"  as  Trustees, — for  the  only  right 
a  Trustee  can  have,  is  to  do  his  duty. 

The  College  was  founded  by  George  the  Second, 
King  of  England,  in  1'754,  just  one  hundred  years  ago. 
His  charter  proclaims  its  objects,  in  language  entirely 
explicit  and  significant.  It  declares  the  College  to  be 
founded  and  established,  "for  the  Education  and  In- 
struction of  Youth,  in  the  Learned  Languages  and  the 
Liberal  Arts  and  Sciences," — to  encourage  "  the  good 
design  of  promoting  a  Liberal  Education,"  and  "  to  make 
the  same  as  Beneficial  as  may  be,  not  only  to  the  Inhab- 
itants of  our  said  Province  of  New-York,  But  to  all  our 
Colonies  and  Territories  in  America." 

No  narrow,  local  or  sectarian  institution  was  fore- 
shadowed or  called  into  being,  by  this  royal  grant, — 
but  a  large,  generous,  expanding  and  comprehensive 
seat  of  learning,  embracing  the  whole  circle  of  the 
"  Learned  Languages  and  Liberal  Arts  and  Sciences," — 
one,  that  should  shed  its  influence,  not  only  over  the 
city  and  province  of  New- York,  but  throughout  the 
wide  extent  of  British  America,  reaching  all  the 
Anglo-American  race  that  should  "  sj)eak  the  lan- 
guage of  Milton,  or  obey  the  laws  of  Alfred."  Has 
Columbia  College  quite  fulfilled  the  design  of  its 
enlightened  founder  ? 

His  "Province  of  New- York"  has  become  a  populous 


11 

and  powerful  State, — his  "  Colonies  and  Territories,"  an 
immense  Continental  Nation,  opening  a  field  broad 
enough  for  the  most  enlarged  and  energetic  action, — 
but  where  and  what  are  we  ?  The  expanding  wealth, 
population  and  culture  of  the  community,  have  planted 
and  strengthened  other  and  younger  institutions, 
now  powerful  agents  for  good  or  for  evil,  but  have 
passed  us  by.  Why  is  this  ?  Why  have  we,  alone,  of 
all  that  exists  between  Maine  and  Georgia,  been  with- 
out material  progress  or  development  for  a  century? 
Does  it  not  behoove  us,  just  entering  upon  our  second 
century,  to  inquire.  What  we  have  done, — what  we 
have  failed  to  do, — and  what  others,  less  favored  than 
ourselves,  have  accomplished  ? 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  only  a  few  years  before 
George  the  Second  founded  Columbia  (then  Kings') 
College,  he  had  established  a  similar  institution,  in 
another  part  of  his  dominions.  In  the  little  town  of 
Gottingen  in  Hanover,  a  German  province  of  scanty  re- 
sources, without  commerce,  almost  without  a  city,  and 
often  scourged  by  war,  he  planted  a  seat  of  learning,  that 
came  into  life  the  competitor  of  its  twin-brother  in  the 
Western  World.  In  1825,  less  than  one  hundred  years 
from  its  birth,  it  had  89  professors,  1545  students,  and 
a  library  of  three  hundred  thousand  volumes,  and  it 
stands  proudly  aloft,  among  the  great  beacon  lights 
of  the  intellectual  world.  The  catalogue  of  Columbia 
College,  in  this  the  hundredth  year  of  its  existence, 
shows  one  hundred  and  forty  students,  and  six  pro- 
fessors. 

It  is  rather  remarkable,  that  an  ambitious,  prospe- 
rous and  enterprising  community  like  ours,  should  ac- 
quiesce in  a  state  of  things  like  this, — that  it  should  be 
content,  to  be  thus  inferior  in  this  distinguishing  badge 


12 

of  civilization,  to  nearly  every  other  portion  of  the  civ- 
ilized world. 

A  glance  at  the  map  of  Europe  shows  this  at  once. 
Not  to  speak  of  the  great  seats  of  learning  in  England, 
Scotland  and  France,  we  see  students  numbered  by  thou- 
sands, in  the  desolate,  down-trodden  cities  of  Italy,— Grer- 
many,  glowing  with  splendid  Universities,  from  the 
North  Sea  to  the  Adriatic, — Russia,  whom  we  presume 
to  call  barbai'ian,  arming  her  University  at  Odessa 
with  more  than  twenty  professors, — while  Sweden,  al- 
most within  the  polar  circle,  lavishes  on  fourteen  hun- 
dred scholars  at  Upsala,  the  richest  treasures  of  science 
and  learning.  Can  Columbia  College,  with  its  little  hand- 
ful of  graduates  and  professors,  feel  that  it  has  accom- 
plished the  objects  of  its  creation  ? 

I  know  it  will  be  said,  that  we  have  wanted 
means, — that  we  have  not  shared  the  bounty  of  the 
community, — that  few,  if  any,  individual  donations  or 
endowments  have  been  added  to  our  original  resources. 
But  if  we  had  wisely  used  the  means  we  had,  all  this 
would  have  been  added  to  us.  The  millions  that  have 
gone  to  the  "  New- York  University,"  the  Free  Academy, 
the  Cooper  Institute  and  the  Astor  Library,  would 
probably  have  been  ours. 

We  may  console  our  pride,  by  claiming  that  our  posi- 
tion has  been,  one  of  dignified  scholarship,  too  far  above 
the  age  to  be  appreciated  or  encouraged, — but  the  an- 
swer Avill  be,  even  if  the  extravagant  assumption  were 
founded  on  fact,  that  we  exist  to  educate  the  people, 
and  should  have  lowered  ourselves  to  a  position  a  little 
less  exalted,  that  so  we  might  raise  them  step  by 
step. 

The  difficulty  lies  deeper  than  the  want  of  money. 
We  have  wanted  Trustees, — more  truly  and  zealously, 


13 

to  carry  out  the  purposes  defined  by  our  charter.  We 
have  avowedly  and  perseveringly  neglected,  underval- 
ued and  disparaged  "the  Liberal  Arts  and  Sciences," 
and  the  world  has  avenged  the  neglect,  by  neglecting 
us. 

It  is  not,  and  has  not  been,  the  want  of  pecuniary 
means.  Yale  College,  possessing  little  else  than  its 
buildings,  filled  her  halls  for  fifty  years,  with  students 
from  every  part  of  the  Union,  attracted  by  the  fame  of 
her  scientific  teachers.  The  annual  cost  of  Day  and 
SiLLiMAN,  sitting  side  by  side  for  half  a  century,  did 
not  exceed  four  thousand  dollars, — but  they  w^ere  con- 
stantly and  vigorously  sustained,  cheered  and  encour- 
aged, by  an  enlightened  and  appreciating  Board  of 
Trustees. 

But  if  poverty  l)e  our  excuse,  it  can  avail  us  no 
longer.  The  great  w^ave  of  commerce  has  reached  our 
landed  estates,  and  we  have  but  to  coin  them  into  rev- 
enue, far  excr^eding  our  utmost  necessities.  This  flood 
of  pecuniary  prosperity,  is,  in  no  sense,  due  to  us.  It  is 
the  work  of  the  busy  community  around  us,  and  that 
community  has  now,  more  than  ever,  the  right  to  ask 
us  to  come  fully  up  to  our  duty.  It  has  a  right  to  ask, 
why  the  College,  surrounded  by  more  than  fifty  thou- 
sand youths,  of  age  suitable  for  College  studies,  capable 
of  education,  and  destined  to  suffer  through  life  for 
want  of  it, — teaches  but  one  hundred  and  forty  ? 

For  I  expressly  maintciin,  that  we  hold  a  distinct  re- 
lation to  the  community  and  owe  it  a  definite  du- 
ty. The  College  is  a  public,  not  a  private  institution. 
Our  Board  of  Trustees  is  not  a  fraternity,  nor  a  reli- 
gious order,  set  apart  from  and  independent  of  the 
community.  It  is  not  a  place  for  personal  predilections 
or  partialities,  either  for  men  or  for  subjects  beyond  the 


14 

scope  of  our  corporate  duties.  It  belongs  wholly  to 
the  world  around  us,  and  we  are  bound  by  every 
principle  of  law,  equity  and  honoi',  to  render  equal  and 
exact  justice  to  every  part  and  portion,  every  sect  and 
section  alike. 

The  College  is,  in  no  sense,  an  ecclesiastical  body. 
It  is  purely  a  human,  secular  institution.  Founded  by 
a  temporal  sovereign,  it  is  solely  the  creature  of  the 
State,  and  to  the  State  alone,  does  it  owe  duty  and 
obedience. 

And  I  further  contend,  that  to  the  community  as 
such,  in  its  aggregate  existence,  the  College  owes  a  pe- 
culiarly high  and  sacred  duty, — not  only  faithfully  to 
discharge  its  trust,  in  educating  individual  students,  but 
to  discharge  it  in  such  mode,  and  with  such  vigor 
and  intelligence,  as  to  advance  the  moral  and  intellec- 
tual dignity  of  the  community  itself, — to  become  an  el- 
ement in  our  social  system,  felt  in  all  its  workings, 
modifying  the  culture  and  elevating  the  character  of 
all  around  us.  The  community  has  a  Right  to  a  great 
seat  of  learning  in  its  midst,  and  is  wronged  if  the 
College,  which  it  has  endowed  and  enriched  with  means 
amply  sufficient  for  such  an  institution,  remain  in  ob- 
scurity or  inefficiency.  The  College  should  form  part 
of  the  great  living  organism  of  society,  giving  it  tone, 
vigor,  color,  growth.  But  of  the  million  of  inhabitants, 
now  assembled  in  and  around  this  great  mart  of  trade, 
how  many  are  impressed  or  improved  by  our  existence  ? 
How  many  know  that  we  exist  at  all  ? 

By  some  of  the  few,  who  know  us,  we  are  regarded, 
however  erroneouslj^,  as  being,  in  some  peculiar  sense, 
aristocratic  in  our  course  of  study  and  administration, 
as  a  place  for  the  sons  of  gentlemen,  to  whom  it  is  our 
special  office,  to  give  culture,  refinement  and  elegant 
taste.     I  will  not  stop  to  controvert  a  notion  so  un- 


15 

founded,  nor  to  protest  against  a  construction  so 
narrow,  of  our  duty  to  tlie  State.  I  will  only  ask 
whether  we  have  fulfilled  even  that  office  ?  Look  at 
the  young  men  crowding  the  drawing-rooms  of  our 
city,  condemned  to  "  ornamental  idleness,"  because  no 
proper  training  has  led  them  up  to  usefulness  to  society, 
the  country,  or  the  Church,  and  tell  me,  whether 
Columbia  College,  with  her  little  yearly  coterie  of  five 
and  twenty  graduates,  has  done  her  duty,  even  to  this 
small  minority  of  the  People  ? 

No  thoughtful  man  can  look  at  the  present  elements 
of  our  society,  without  forebodings  for  the  future.  The 
utter  feebleness  of  the  sons  of  the  rich,  and  their  total 
inability  to  combat  the  misdirected  education,  the  crude 
theories,  that  make  perilous  the  growing  power  of  the 
needy  classes,  become  more  and  more  apparent,  with 
each  succeeding  generation.  If  our  seats  of  learning 
will  awake  to  their  responsibilities  and  their  work,  they 
may  greatly  mitigate,  if  they  cannot  entirely  remove 
these  evils.  If  they  can  do  no  more,  they  may  at  least 
transmute  the  holders  of  wealth,  used  only  for  ostenta- 
tion or  self-indulgence,  into  liberal  and  intelligent  lead- 
ers, in  every  good  and  generous  effort  for  the  common 
welfare.  Benevolence  bids  us  teach  the  poor, — but  it 
will  be  a  charity  indeed,  to  educate  the  rich. 

The  very  exuberance  of  our  commercial  prosperity, 
our  rank  and  rapid  growth  in  wealth  and  luxury,  are 
scattering  far  and  wide,  the  seeds  of  deep  and  deadly 
disease.  The  universal  spirit  of  traffic,  with  its  mad- 
dening love  of  gain,  and  its  insolent  contempt  for  any 
intellectual  greatness,  artistic  excellence,  or  moral 
worth,  that  does  not  yield  a  pecuniary  return,  are  de- 
grading and  demoralizing  the  whole  mass.  Wealth 
earned  by  cunning,  is  squandered  in  vain  and  empty 
show,  until  the  universal  axiom  has  come  to  be,  that 


16 

Money  is  the  only  proper  aim  of  Man.  Tlie  virtue 
of  our  public  men  and  public  bodies  is  sinking,  as 
it  must  sink,  under  this  debasing  preference  of  pecu- 
niary wealth,  to  the  priceless  treasures  of  liberal  science 
and  art.  Who  does  not  see  and  feel,  that  our  traffick- 
ing, money-loving  people,  are  treading  the  path 
of  crafty,  mercenary  Carthage, — not  classic,  polished 
Athens  ?  Where  will  it  lead  us,  if  we  do  not  erect  and 
interpose  at  once,  great  and  attractive  seats  of  learning 
and  science  and  art,  to  arrest  this  downward  course? 

Nor  is  this  high  political  and  social  office  of  a 
great  seat  of  learning  at  all  an  idle  fancy,  unsus- 
tained  by  reason  or  experience.  In  the  moral  and 
intellectual  history  of  modern  times,  there  is  no  event 
more  striking  and  instructive  than  the  majestic  stand 
made  by  Prussia,  after  its  disastrous  overthrow,  by 
Napoleon  at  Jena.  The  monarchy  was  all  but  ruined, 
— on  the  very  brink  of  dismemberment, — when  the 
'sagacious  statesmanship  and  far-seeing  wisdom  of  Stein 
and  his  noble  associates,  established  the  University  of 
Berlin, — for  the  expressly  avowed  purpose  of  elevating 
the  character  of  the  j)eople,  and  thereby  enabling  the 
nation  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  France.  The  tree  thus 
planted,  within  ten  years  yielded  fruits.  The  spirit  of 
the  community  was  revived  and  rekindled.  Prussia  was 
disenthralled, — and  the  University  stands,  with  its  one 
hundred  and  fifty  professors  and  four  thousand  students, 
a  monument  of  the  wisdom  of  its  founders,  and  will 
stand  while  letters  endure. 

Among  the  few  glimpses  it  has  been  my  fortune  to 
gain,  of  the  truly  great  things  of  this  world,  I  succeeded 
some  eight  years  ago,  in  seeing  the  Berlin  Academy  of 
Science  in  session, — and  there  was  clustered,  a  galaxy 
of  scholarship,  learning,  and  genius,  eclipsing  all  the 
world  l:)esides.   It  was  amid  this  magnificent  assemblage 


17 

consisting  of  men  like  Humboldt,  and  Rittek,  and 
Encke,  and  Ehrenberg,  and  Jacobi,  and  tlie  brothers 
Rose,  and  hosts  of  others,  filling  the  world  with  their 
fame, — that  I  found  our  alumnus,  Wolcott  Gibbs,  imbib- 
ing from  that  great  fountain,  the  knowledge  which 
our  shortcomings  had  failed  to  provide  him.  And 
why  should  not  New- York, — the  capital  of  a  Conti- 
nent, with  its  hundreds  soon  to  be  thousands  of  mil- 
lions of  commercial  wealth,  also  possess  a  University 
and  Scientific  circle,  to  elevate  and  embellish  its  com- 
mercial life  ?  Must  the  very  magnitude  of  its  conti- 
nental traffic  weigh  down  its  intellect  for  ever  ? 
Will  not  the  College  exert  her  highest  and  noblest 
functions,  in  rescuing  the  community  from  the  base  do- 
minion of  sordid  gain, — in  shaking  ofl'  the  double  yoke 
of  avarice  and  ostentation, — in  renovating,  regenerating, 
and  saving  society  ? 

That  this  result  is  attainable  I  will  not  doubt. 
Others  more  patriotic  and  enlightened  will  attempt 
it,  if  we  do  not.  A  deep,  premonitory  feeling  now 
pervades  the  public  mind,  that  a  great  national  Uni- 
versity is  needed, — not  a  College,  in  our  narrow  sense 
of  the  term, — a  mere  gymnasium,  or  grammar-school, 
where  some  half  dozen  professors  repeat,  year  after 
year,  the  same  rudiments, — but  a  broad,  comprehensive 
seat  of  learning,  science  and  art,  where  every  student 
may  pursue  any  path  he  may  select,  to  its  extremest 
attainable  limit,  and  above  all,  where  original  research 
and  discovery  by  the  ablest  men  the  world  can  furnish, 
shall  add  daily  to  the  great  sum  of  human  knowledge. 

The  effort  made  at  Albany,  in  the  winter  of  1852, 
(though  not  then  successful,)  to  induce  the  State  to  found 
such  an  institution,  showed  the  prevalence  and  strength 
of  this  feeling.   It  was  there,  that  aided  and  encouraged 

2 


18 

by  some  of  the  most  enlightened  divines  of  that  city,  dis- 
cerning the  harmony  between  the  Word  and  the  Works 
of  God,  and  not  afraid  to  expose  Kevealed  Truth  to 
the  eye  of  human  science,  that  the  friends  of  Learning 
sought  to  establish  a  University  which  should  enroll 
Agassiz,  and  Peiece,  and  Dana,  and  Hall,  and  Bache, 
and  GiBBS,  and  men  of  like  size  and  strength,  among 
its  most  trusted  and  honored  teachers.  And  who,  of 
all  the  eminent  and  devoted  patrons  of  science,  and 
official  defenders  of  religion,  then  in  council,  thought 
for  a  moment  of  filling  the  chair  of  Chemistry,  with 
any  but  Wolcott  Gibbs  ?  Of  his  pre-eminent  qualifi- 
cations, professional,  moral  and  personal,  and  the 
bright  promise  of  his  future  career,  no  one  whispered  a 
doubt.  Still  less  did  any  one  dream  of  requiring  theo- 
logical conformity  from  him,  or  any  Professor  of  Phys- 
ical Science. 

But  the  condition  of  the  State  finances,  fettered  by 
the  Constitution  of  1846,  precluded  further  progress  in 
that  direction, — added  to  which,  was  the  apprehension, 
that  in  the  ever-recurring  and  disgusting  scramble  for 
political  spoils,  even  the  Professors'  chairs  might  not 
be  spared.  The  project  was  reluctantly  abandoned, 
but  with  a  deep  conviction  that  the  measure  could  not 
be  long  postponed. 

Upon  such  an  occasion,  the  large  but  dormant 
powers  and  capacities  of  Columbia  College,  with  its 
certainty  of  great  and  immensely  increasing  wealth, 
directed  by  Trustees  secure  of  office  during  good  be- 
ha^dor,  and  able  not  only  to  found,  but  permanently 
and  steadily  to  maintain  such  an  institution,  could  hard- 
ly fail  to  arrest  attention,  and  every  one  supposed  they 
would  gladly  discharge  a  duty  so  gratifying  and  honor- 
able. 

The  Free  Academy  was  also  spoken  of,  but  the  pre- 


19 

carious  tenure  of  its  Board  of  Management,  cliosen 
annually  by  popular  vote,  and  the  inherent  necessity 
of  always  keeping  a  University  somewhat  above  or  in 
advance  of  the  average  state  of  popular  intelligence, 
suggested  difficulties  which  then  seemed  insuperable. 
When  we  observe,  however,  the  extent  to  which  that 
admirable  institution  has  succeeded,  in  a  few  short 
years,  in  subduing  popular  prejudice, — its  rapid  ad- 
vance in  thorough  classical  and  scientific  teaching, — 
the  number,  vigor  and  activity  of  its  Professors, —  the 
richness,  order  and  efficiency  of  its  laboratory,  appa- 
ratus and  other  appliances, — its  five  years'  course  of 
study, — and  how  far  it  has  already  outstripped  our 
College,  in  the  number  of  its  students, — it  is  by  no 
means  certain,  that  this  early  infancy  is  not  the  pre- 
cursor of  a  great  and  brilliant  future,  and  that  it  will 
not  take  the  splendid  and  beneficent  position  we  were 
meant  to  occupy.  Let  it  continue  to  advance,  and  let  us 
remain  stationary  but  a  few  years  longer,  and  the  ques- 
tion of  our  relative  position  in  the  intellectual  history  of 
the  State  and  the  country,  will  be  settled.  It  will  then 
be  too  late  for  us  to  attain  the  honorable  place  we  shall- 
have  thus  declined  to  fill.  Two  Universities, — two- 
great  centres  of  scholarship  and  science,  cannot  exist: 
together  in  the  same  city.  One  or  the  other  must  be 
absorbed  or  annihilated, — and  we  may  live  to  see  this 
so-called  democratic  school,  founded  avowedly  because 
we  did  not  satisfy  the  just  demands  of  the  community,, 
giving  intellectual  tone  to  the  city,  and  through  the 
city  to  the  nation, — while  we  remain  travelling  round 
the  narrow  circle,  to  which  inveterate  habit  has  accus- 
tomed us. 

What  I  have  said  of  the  magnitude  of  our  duties, 
the  importance  of  an  University  among  us,  and  the 


20 

necessity  of  bestirring  ourselves  to  establish  it,  is  di- 
rectly pertinent  to  tbe  special  question  now  before  us. 
For  such  an  institution  cannot  win  authority,  respect 
or  confidence,  unless  it  be  pre-eminent  in  Physical  Sci- 
ence, which  as  plainly  characterizes  the  j^resent  age,  as 
Scholastic  Philosophy  did  that  of  Abelard,  or  Classical 
Literature  that  of  the  Medici.  To  do  this,  we  must,  of 
necessity,  repudiate  all  religious  tests  and  qualifications, 
at  least  in  that  department  of  our  teaching, — for  we 
cannot  conceal  the  fact,  that  the  Church  now  produces 
few  great  scientific  teachers.  We  may  find  within 
her  ranks,  the  best  instructors  in  Literature,  Art  and 
Pure  Intellect, — in  History,  Ethics,  Moral  Philoso- 
phy, the  poetry  of  Greece  and  Rome  and  kindred 
subjects, — but  we  must  look  in  France  and  Germany, 
not  at  Oxford,  for  the  great  Masters  of  Science, — for 
those  who  best  teach  the  laws,  by  which  God  has 
worked  and  is  working  in  his  visible  Creation.  In 
this  department,  mediocrity  will  not  suffice.  Scientific 
men  of  the  highest  order,  are  the  vital  element  of  a  Uni- 
versity,— and  it  is  only  a  second  rate  institution  that  will 
content  itself  with  any  othei\ 

In  asserting  that  the  Church  produces  few  great  sci- 
entific teachers,  I  only  state  a  fact  deeply  to  be  deplored, 
for  it  is  Her  peculiar  office  to  watch  the  progress  of 
human  thought,  to  guide,  promote  and  consecrate  the 
intellectual  labors  of  man.  Five  hundred  years  ago, 
when  the  intellect  of  Christendom  was  abandoning 
Schoiastieism  for  the  newly  opened  field  of  Classical 
Learning,  the  Church  forgot  her  duty.  Lagging  be- 
hind the  age,  she  by  turns  opposed  and  feebly  encour- 
aged, what  we  now  see  was  the  great  movement  of  the 
time.  She  alienated  its  leaders,  and  allowed  Thought 
and  Letters  16  get  beyond  her  influence,  and  the  Chris- 
tian world  still  suffers  fi'om  the  disastrous  mistake. 


21 

We  are  now  in  tlie  midst  of  another  intellectual 
revolution,  no  less  momentous.  Man  is  hourly  gaining 
mastery  over  Nature,  developing  her  hidden  laws,  and 
subduing  to  his  service  her  hostile  powers.  Physical 
Science,  the  splendid  instrument  of  modern  progress, 
must  become,  if  it  be  not  already,  the  controlliug  study 
of  the  ao^e.  Should  the  Church  be  lono^er  indifferent 
to  such  an  element  ?     Is  she  at  liberty  to  disregard  it  ? 

Distrusting  modern  science  and  avoiding  contact  or 
sympathy  with  its  leaders,  she  has  thus  far  denied  her- 
self the  power,  she  was  entitled  to  exert  over  the  nine- 
teenth century.  But  recent  indications  lead  us  to  hope 
better  things  for  tlie  future.  Signs  of  concord  and  co- 
operation begin  to  appear,  and  the  time  has  not  yet 
passed,  for  the  Church  to  bring  into  her  ranks, — where 
they  belong, — the  potent  energies  of  modern  science. 

For  distrusting  the  study  of  the  Classics,  and  omit- 
ting actively  to  encourage  the  "Revival  of  Letters," 
the  Church  at  the  time  had  some  apology.  Clearly  as 
we  now  perceive  the  beauty  and  value  of  Ancient 
Learning,  and  its  fundamental  importance  as  an  element 
of  sound  education,  we  cannot  wonder  that  she  hesi- 
tated, before  admitting  heathen  philosophy  and  poetry 
into  her  religious  teaching. 

But  a  reverent  study  of  the  Works  of  the  Creator, 
can  only  strengthen  the  position  of  the  Church,  and 
furnish  cumulative  evidence  of  the  truths  she  teach- 
es. The  laws  of  Matter  have  been  consecrated  by  Her 
Divine  Founder,  to  the  good  of  the  human  race.  In 
healing  the  sick,  and  multiplying  food  for  the  starving, 
He  showed  the  Church  her  duty  to  care  for  man's 
material  wants,  and  use  for  his  welfare,  all  the  powers 
of  material  nature. 

Is  it  not  then,  matter  of  profound  regret,  that  the 
Church  should  deem  it  unimportant,  to  enlarge  to  the 


22 

uttermost,  our  knowledge  of  the  wide-spread  wonders  of 
God's  Material  Creation  ? — that  it  should  fail  to  perceive 
the  immensity  of  the  truth,  embodied  in  the  Universal 
Liturgy,  which  proclaims  not  only  Heaven,  but  Earth, 
"  full  of  the  Majesty  of  His  Glory  ?" 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  members  of  our 
Board,  estimate  very  differently  the  necessity,  value 
and  dignity  of  Physical  Science.  The  fact  is  abun- 
dantly manifested,  not  only  in  the  open  disparage- 
ment of  that  branch  of  human  knowledge,  but  in  the 
utter  failure  of  earnest  and  repeated  efforts  to  divide 
the  Chair  of  Chemistry  and  Physics,  now  overload- 
ed with  duties  which  would  amply  employ  at  least 
three  Professors, — and  to  provide  meanwhile  for  the 
single  Professor,  more  adequate  and  decent  apartments. 
T  may  be  too  radical  a  reformer,  but  I  cannot  think  it 
very  unreasonable,  in  the  Trustee  of  a  College  holding 
itself  out  to  the  public  as  a  seat  of  science,  to  remon- 
strate against  its  teaching  Experimental  Philosophy  in  a 
dark,  damp  basement,  where  its  apparatus  rusts  and  per- 
ishes, and  the  health  of  professor  and  pupils  is  endanger- 
ed,— nor  to  insist  that  Optics  might  better  be  taught 
in  an  apartment,  that  the  light  of  Heaven  can  enter. 

We  all  know,  and  the  public  knows  how  we 
turned  away,  year  after  year,  from  all  the  entrea- 
ties of  our  late  Professor,  that  his  department  and 
the  reputation  of  the  College  might  be  relieved  from 
these  needless  embarrassments,  till  after  thirty  years' 
service,  he  left  us  in  disgust  and  despair. 

I  confess  that  I  hoped,  when  we  should  proceed  to 
fill  the  vacancy,  and  especially  if  our  Board  should  still 
consider  a  single  professor  sufficient  to  teach  Chemistry, 
Geology,  Mechanics,  and  the  whole  vast  field  of  Natural 
Philosophy,  with  all  the  splendid  accessions  of  modern 


23 

times,  the  efforts  of  the  friends  of  Science,  even  if  over- 
pressing,  might  be  so  far  respected,  that  none  but  a  Pro- 
fessor of  pre-eminent  ability  and  unquestioned  fitness 
would  be  placed  in  that  all-important  Chair. 

Such  was  the  confident  expectation  of  the  com- 
munity around  us, — of  the  crowds  of  parents  wait- 
ing with  their  sons,  for  our  decision, — of  the  whole 
body  of  the  alumni,  who  knew  that  among  their  num- 
ber, was  the  man  best  qualified.  Such  too,  was  the 
hope  of  the  distinguished  leaders  of  Science,  through- 
out the  country,  and  of  a  large  majority  of  the  lay 
members  of  our  own -body. 

What  then  was  our  disappointment  and  mortification, 
when  WoLCOTT  Gibbs, — bearing  with  him  the  united 
voice  of  all  that  was  commanding  in  the  Scientific  world, 
— a  son  of  our  College,  winning  its  highest  honors,  only 
to  add  yet  higher  testimonials  from  the  ablest  masters  in 
the  Old  World, — rich  too,  in  every  moral,  mental  and 
social  excellence,  that  could  dignify  and  adorn  the  place, 
was  called  to  account,  by  members  of  our  body  repre- 
senting at  least  three  separate  religious  denominations, 
for  his  want  of  conformity  to  a  theological  standard  of 
their  own,  compounded  from  incoherent  and  opposing 
creeds,  and  agreeing  only  in  hostility  to  the  denomina- 
tion to  which  he  belonged ! 

Before  examining  the  legal  and  the  moral  merits  of 
this  objection, — let  me  clear  the  way,  of  all  idle  and 
senseless  suspicions,  by  declaring  distinctly,  that  I  do 
not  seek  or  wish  to  weaken  the  just  authority  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  or  undervalue  any  truth  it  teaches.  It 
might  suflSce,  to  point  to  the  members  of  the  Board 
holding  views  like  my  own,  in  respect  to  its  duty  to 
the  community  and  the  Church, — who  have  voted  for 
Dr.  Gibbs.     But  I  prefer  to  purge  myself  individually, 


24 

from  any  charge  of  indifference,  either  to  the  fundamen- 
tal truths  which  the  Church  maintains,  or  to  the  disci- 
pline and  authority  of  the  Church  itself. 

I  declare  then,  that  I  hold,  in  the  fullest  sense,  to 
the  faith  of  that  portion  of  the  Church  Catholic,  known 
as  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States, — that  I  believe  its  doctrines,  approve  its  govern- 
ment, and  am  ready  to  submit  to  its  discipline.  I  was 
born  and  baptized  in  that  Church,  have  been  for  many 
years  one  of  its  members,  and  hojoe  to  die  in  its  faith  and 
communion.  No  man  living  esteems  more  highly  the 
wisdom  of  its  institutions,  the  excellence  of  its  example, 
the  Christian  piety  and  dignity  of  its  Ministers,  the 
beauty,  propriety  and  sublimity  of  its  unrivalled 
Liturgy. 

Viewed  only  as  an  engine  of  human  polity,  I  regard 
the  Church,  as  the  strongest  and  best  of  the  bonds,  which 
bind  together  our  National  Union,  one  which  may  save 
it,  when  nothing  else  can, — as  our  most  efficient  safe- 
guard, sure  though  silent,  against  all  unlawful  assaults 
on  order,  property  or  morality, — as  our  constant  and 
unfailing  antidote  and  protection  against  the  excesses 
and  disorders,  to  which  the  life  of  a  young  Nation,  like 
ours,  is  so  peculiarly  subject. 

Nor  am  I  indifferent  to  doctrinal,  dogmatic  truth. 
I  hold  a  Creed, — a  definite  Creed, — essential  to  the 
Church,  and  the  individual  Churchman, — and  I  render 
all  honor  and  reverence  to  the  Church,  for  firmly  and 
sternly  maintaining  hers  unchanged,  through  all  the 
revolutions,  which  for  eighteen  centuries  have  agitated 
the  human  race. 

It  is,  because  I  thus  esteem  and  venerate  the  Church, 
— because  I  fain  would  save  her  from  the  scoff  and 
ridicule  of  the  world  around,  that  I  labor  to  dissuade 


25 

those  who  value  her  welfare,  from  adopting  in  the  pre- 
sent controversy  the  mistaken  policy,  which  some  have 
meditated.  I  dread  the  consummation  of  an  act,  which 
her  enemies  will  adduce,  to  prove  her  afraid  to  submit 
the  Word  of  God,  to  a  comparison  with  His  Works 
studied  by  the  light  of  Science, — and  above  all,  which 
may  countenance  in  any  way,  the  accusation  that 
Churchmen  either  claim  the  right  to  dispense  with 
human  law,  or  nullify  by  casuistry  its  plain  moral  ob- 
ligations, when  they  think  the  interests  of  the  Church 
demand  it. 

I  know  the  Church  can  and  will  survive  any  errors, 
even  of  its  appointed  defenders.  But  I  foresee,  that 
the  act,  now  threatened,  if  carried  out,  will  prove 
highly  injurious  to  the  sacred  cause  they  live  to  main- 
tain. If  it  be  said,  their  conscience  compels  them  to 
the  act,  I  claim  that  mine  compels  me  to  oppose  it. 
The  interests  of  the  Church  are  dear  alike,  to  all  its 
members,  clerical  and  lay,  and  I  claim  the  right  to  say, 
that  if  she  hoj^es  to  achieve  the  great  work  before 
her,  of  bringing  the  whole  human  family  into  her  fold, 
she  must  now  and  always,  and  through  all  coming 
time,  illustrate  her  teaching  by  her  works, — and  that 
she  can  only  reach  and  control  the  universal  conscience, 
by  her  unfailing  and  abundant  observance,  at  all  times, 
of  justice  and  good  faith  to  Man,  and  the  institutions 
of  Man.  She  should  not  only  be  always  right,  but 
even  more  than  right, — not  only  pure,  but  beyond 
suspicion, — and  in  construing  a  law  or  a  contract,  if 
there  be  even  a  doubt,  should  rather  prefer  to  decide 
against  herself,  and  thus  follow  the  example,  by  which 
high-minded  and  honorable  men  of  the  world,  com- 
mand its  confidence  and  respect. 

For  the  distinguished  divines,  each  and  all,  who 


26 

honor  our  Board,  with  their  presence,  I  entertain  per- 
sonally, sincere  respect, — for  some  of  them  indeed, 
as  they  well  know,  most  cordial  affection, — and  it 
is  quite  as  much  for  their  sakes,  and  that  of  the  Church, 
as  for  the  College,  that  1  now  ask  you  and  every 
brother  Churchman  in  the  Board,  to  assist  in  averting 
the  pernicious  effects,  which  an  unlawful  exercise  of 
power,  on  the  present  occasion,  must  inevitably  bring 
upon  her. 

Let  us  then  attentively  examine  the  legal  and 
moral  nature  of  the  claim,  to  set  aside  the  best  qualified 
teacher  of  Physical  Science,  by  reason  of  his  alleged  un- 
soundness on  a  point  of  theology. 

It  is  not  prima  facie^  a  valid  or  sufficient  objection, 
and  the  burthen  of  proof  rests  on  those  who  assert 
it.  But  I  contend  affirmatively,  that  the  objection 
is  alike  unnecessary,  impolitic,  unjust  and  unlaw- 
ful. 

In  the  first  place,  Dr.  Gibes  is  not  an  infidel, — and  it 
is  to  be  hoped,  we  may  hear  no  moreof  a  design  to  banish 
religion  from  the  College,  and  introduce  infidelity  among 
the  students.  Infidelity  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
matter,  and  the  application  of  the  term  to  him,  is  simply 
preposterous.  An  infidel  is  he  who  disbelieves  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  but  Dr.  Gibbs  expressly  declares, 
that  he  believes  in  them  and  in  their  divine  inspiration, 
and  moreover  adds,  that  he  knows  of  nothing  in  any 
branch  of  Science,  with  which  he  is  acquainted,  which 
conflicts  with  their  teaching,  or  impugns  their  authority. 
His  written  answer  to  the  inquiries  of  the  Chairman  of 
our  Board,  certainly  shows  this.  But  in  that  answer, 
he  frankly  admits  that  he  belongs  to  that  denomination 
of  Christians,  known  as  "Unitarians;"  and  this  is  the 
only  tangible  objection  that  is  urged  against  him.    He 


27 

may,  therefore,  be  a  heretic,  but  he  certainly  is  not  an 
infidel.  The  charge  against  him  is  heresy,  not  infi- 
delity.    Now  is  this  heresy  ? 

As  I  am  informed,  there  are  wide  differences  of 
opinion  among  Christians  calling  themselves  "  Unitari- 
ans," on  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Nature.  That  de- 
nomination embraces  a  school  which  holds  nearly  all 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  orthodox  church, — 
objecting  to  nothing  in  the  Nicene  Creed  itself,  except 
the  words  "  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,"  for 
which  they  substitute  the  words  "of  lihe  substance 
with  the  Father." 

We  have  no  evidence  of  De.  Gibbs'  precise  j^osition 
on  this  question.  Very  possibly  he  may  never  have  de- 
fined it  even  to  himself,  but  like  too  many  laymen,  has 
adopted  without  special  examination,  the  faith  which 
early  habit  may  have  taught  him  to  respect.  But  I 
know  that  he  is  utterly  free  from  any  spirit  of  prose- 
lytism,  or  aggressive  hostility  to  any  other  faith,  and  I 
have  reason  to  believe,  that  his  theological  views,  so 
far  as  he  has  ever  defined  them,  assimilate  to  those  of 
the  more  conservative  portion  of  the  Unitarian  body. 

He  was  made  by  baptism  at  the  age  of  eleven  years, 
a  member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  but  since 
his  father's  death,  has  attended  a  Unitarian  place  of 
worship.  He  certainly  is  one  of  those  "  who  profess  and 
call  themselves  Christians,"  for  whom  the  Church  in- 
structs us  to  pray,  but  whom  she  nowhere  authorizes  us 
to  proscribe. 

We  have  no  proof,  nor  any  reason  to  believe,  that 
he  denies  or  doubts  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour,  nor 
His  Atonement  for  the  sins  of  man, — and  the  only  in- 
ference we  can  legitimately  draw,  from  his  admission 
that  he  is  a  Unitarian,  is  that  he  does  not  believe  in 


28 

the  Eternal  Consubstautiality  of  the  Three  Persons  of 
the  Godhead. 

We  must  then  inquire,  whether  this  be  what  the 
law  defines  as  heresy.  For  we  are  Trustees  of  a  Col- 
lege created  by  law,  to  discharge  duties  prescribed  by 
law, — and  surely  we  must  consult  the  law,  to  determine 
what  constitutes  the  offence,  the  commission  of  which, 
legally  authorizes  us  to  exclude  the  offender  from  our 
Professorships. 

By  the  law  of  England,  heresy  is  defined  to  be  an 
"erroneous  ojoinion  on  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  publicly  and  obstinately  maintained." 
We  certainly  have  no  evidence  that  De.  Gibbs  "  j^ublic- 
ly"  maintains  any  theological  dogma  whatever, — still 
less  that  he  does  so  "obstinately,"  for  no  one  to  our 
knowledge,  has  sought  to  convince  him  that  any  opinion 
of  his  is  erroneous.  I  knew  him  for  many  years,  without 
being  aware  that  he  was  a  Unitarian.  It  is  distinctly 
proved,  that  during  his  five  years'  connection  with  the 
Free  Academy,  he  has  never  introduced  his  theological 
views  into  his  professional  teaching,  or  made  his  asso- 
ciates acquainted  with  them.  We  have  no  evidence,  that 
he  has  ever  declared  his  creed  to  any  person  whatever, 
except  to  one  of  our  own  body  who  inquired  into  his 
theological  position.  His  heresy  therefore  lacks  the 
two  legal  elements,  of  public  avowal  and  obstinate 
maintenance. 

But  is  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  only 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity,  or  are  there  other 
doctrines  which  some  of  us  hold  fundamental,  and  to 
which  we  may  also  require  conformity  ?  Who  shall 
decide  ?  There  are  in  our  Board  clerical  members  of 
three  different  religious  bodies,  and  laymen  conscien- 
tiously attached  to  various  antagonist  forms  of  faith. 


29 

May  each  vote  against  every  candidate,  who  does  not 
hold  what  he  beheves  an  essential  doctrine  of  Christiani- 
ty ?  Can  it  be  possible  that  the  law  directs,  (for  the  law 
does  direct  every  lawful  act  of  a  Trustee,)  the  Anglican 
Churchman,  the  Calvinist,  the  Roman  Catholic,  the 
Dutch  Reformed,  the  Baptist,  the  Methodist,  the  Uni- 
tarian, the  Quaker,  and  the  Jew, — for  members  from 
all  these  sects  have  held,  and  may  again  hold,  seats  in 
our  Board, — to  execute  their  trust,  each  by  an  indepen- 
dent rule  ?  If  it  be  the  duty  of  one,  to  vote  only  for  a 
candidate  who  holds  the  fundamental  truths  of  the 
Apostolical  Succession  and  Baptismal  Regeneration,  is 
another  bound  to  vote  only  for  him  who  denies  those 
truths  ?  Does  the  law  require  of  us  duties  so  contra- 
dictory ?  Which  of  the  denominations,  now  represented 
in  our  Board,  is  to  fix  the  standard  ?  If  the  Episcopal 
Church,  now  possessing  the  numerical  majority,  is  au- 
thorized to  do  so,  must  it  not  select  its  own  peculiar 
doctrines, — and  if  perchance  twenty  years  hence,  a  ma- 
jority should  belong  to  the  Presbyterian  or  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church,  is  the  standard  then  to  change,  and 
those  now  eligible  to  become  disqualified  ? 

The  first  thing  we  see  in  examining  the  charter  of 
1754,  is  the  selection  as  Trustees,  of  five  clergymen  of 
five  different  churches, — the  Episcopal,  the  Presbyterian, 
the  Lutheran,  the  Dutch  Reformed  and  the  Fi'ench, — in- 
cluding all  the  denominations  of  any  importance  then 
in  the  city.  One  was  selected  from  each,  and  with  his 
successor  in  ofiice,  for  the  time  being,  was  made,  ex 
officio^  a  trustee  of  the  College.  Each  of  these  five  trus- 
tees had  equal  rule  and  authority ;  each  an  equal  right 
to  claim  the  College,  as  the  organ  of  his  peculiar  faith. 
The  intent  of  the  charter  manifestly  was,  to  place  the 
clerical  representatives  side  by  side,  to  neutralize  and 


30 

disarm  each  other.  To  make  the  matter  safer  still, 
nine  colonial  officers  were  added  ex  officio^  and  twenty- 
four  trustees  taken  from  the  city  at  large. 

But  even  this  did  not  satisfy  the  jealous  caution, 
not  only  of  the  colonists,  but  even  of  one  of  the  five 
churches  thus  specially  represented,  for  fearing  that 
the  Church  of  England  might  gain  undue  pre-eminence 
or  authority,  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  through 
its  Minister,  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Trustees  in  May, 
1^55,  introduced  measures  which  were  immediately 
adopted,  for  establishing  in  the  College  a  Professorship 
of  Divinity,  "  according  to  the  doctrine,  discij^line  and 
worship  established  by  the  National  Synod  of  Dort," 
with  power  to  the  Dutch  Church  to  appoint  the  Pro- 
fessor. That  no  such  Professor  has  ever  been  appoint- 
ed, proves  only  that  no  sectarian  teaching  has  ever  been 
introduced  into  the  College,  but  the  privilege  of  the 
Dutch  Church  now  slumbering,  will  awake  at  the  first 
attempt  of  any  other  denomination,  to  establish  its 
own  distinctive  dogmas. 

And  yet  the  very  essence  of  heresy  consists,  in  a  de- 
parture from  a  standard  established  by  a  single  Church, 
having  sole  authority  to  fix  it.  The  notion  of  two 
independent  churches  each  possessing  exclusive  power 
to  fix  the  standard,  is  absurd.  Bossuet,  the  eminent 
Romish  divine,  compactly  defines  a  heretic  as  one  who 
has  his  own  opinion,  {([ui  a  tine  opinion  a  lui^)  in  con- 
tradistinction to  a  Catholic,  who  follows  the  opinion  of 
the  Universal  Church.  Hence  the  Statutes  of  England 
before  the  Reformation,  defined  heresy  to  be  "  the  teach- 
ing "  (not  the  'holding')  "  of  opinions  contrary  to  the 
Blessed  determinations  of  Holy  Church." 

Nor  was  the  heretic  punishable,  nor  could  he  be 
deprived  of  any  right,  or  privilege,  or  eligibility  to 


8J 

office  enjoyed  by  other  subjects  of  the  Crown,  nor 
could  his  heresy  be  noticed  by  any  individual  or  tribunal 
known  to  English  law,  until  he  had  been  duly  tried  and 
his  heresy  judicially  established  by  the  Bishoj?,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  legitimate  canonical  jurisdiction.  Only 
after  trial,  defence  and  all  the  formalities  of  a  solemn 
judicial  act,  did  the  laws  of  England,  commencing  with 
Henry  IV.,  allow  the  privilege  of  the  subject  to  be  im- 
paired by  his  heresy. 

We  need  only  examine  that  interesting  and  vener- 
able writ,  "  de  liaeretico  comburendoj'' — still  smouldering 
in  Fitzherbert, — to  see  that  the  prior  adjudication  by 
the  Bishop  was  indispensable,  and  that  the  heretic  could 
not  be  lawfully  burned  without  it.  Indeed  it  w^as  a 
privilege  to  the  heretic  himself,  to  be  exposed  to  the 
scrutiny  of  only  a  single  tribunal,  consistent  with  itself, 
and  governed  by  a  definite  and  notorious  standard  of 
faith,  instead  of  two  or  three  conflicting  with  each 
other,  and  each  perhaps  with  itself. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  several  conflicting  denomi- 
nations in  our  Board,  by  some  eclectic  process  may 
ignore  their  points  of  difference,  and  adopt  as  a  religious 
test,  the  propositions  in  which  they  all  agree.  The  history 
of  Christendom  is  not  without  an  edifying  example  of 
such  a  compact.  By  the  treaty  of  Westphalia,  which 
closed  the  Thirty  Years'  war,  the  Catholics,  Calvinists, 
and  Lutherans,  solemnly  stipulated  to  accuse  each  other 
of  heresy  no  longer, — reserving  the  right  of  extermina- 
ting all  who  differed  from  the  joint  belief  of  the  three 
contracting  parties. 

Now  we  yield  a  certain  deference  to  the  consistent 
intolerance  of  Hildebrand,  or  Laud,  or  Calvin,  or 
Mather,  or  any  person  conscientiously  proclaiming 
any  series  of  dogmas  to  be  the  whole  truth  of  God,  but 
it  becomes  somewhat  difficult  to  respect  the  composite 


82 

intolerance  of  religious  parties,  differing  in  many  funda- 
mental articles  of  faith,  but  leagued  in  common  hostility 
to  those  who  deny  some  other  article,  on  which  the  con- 
tracting parties  chance  to  agree.  They  who  tolerate 
the  heresy  of  each  other,  no  longer  possess  the  logical 
right  to  be  intolerant  at  all.  If  each  may  ally  itself 
with  one  form  of  error,  all  are  precluded  from  setting 
U23  the  duty  to  proscribe  any  other. 

The  world  has  become  pretty  well  aware,  that  eccle- 
siastical bodies  differ  on  the  question,  Whether  the  Pro- 
testant "  Reformation,"  so  called,  brought  with  it  the 
right  of  "  private  judgment,"  in  construing  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  other  evidences  of  Revealed  Truth. 

It  is  quite  certain,  that  members  of  our  body  differ 
widely  as  to  the  extent  of  that  right.  How  far,  if  at 
all,  De.  Gibbs  has  transcended  its  proper  limits  on  the 
present  occasion,  may  present  further  points  for  serious 
disagreement. 

He  may  have  unlawfully  and  erroneously  exercised 
his  private  judgment  on  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole,  or 
only  on  particular  texts,  in  relation  to  the  Unity  of  the 
Godhead, — or  not  being  able  to  reconcile  conflict- 
ing passages,  he  may  have  adopted  for  the  pre- 
sent the  simplest  view  of  that  transcendent  mystery 
as  prima  facie  true, — or  he  may  not  receive  as  con- 
clusive, the  construction  given  to  ScrijDture  by  some 
ecclesiastical  body, — or  not  having  yet  investigated 
the  question  at  all,  he  may  continue  in  connection  with 
that  denomination  in  which  he  was  brought  up,  and  in 
which  it  has  pleased  God  to  place  him,  until  he  shall 
be  shown  affirmatively  that  it  Lis  duty  to  leave  it  for 
another.  I  believe  the  last  to  be  the  sum  total  of  his  of- 
fence,— and  if  it  is,  have  we  not  some  at  least  among  our 
own  laity,  whose  only  argument  for  their  orthodox  belief, 


33 

is  that  tliey  have  been  brought  up  to  take  its  truth  for 
granted  ? 

It  is  clearly  the  right  of  De.  Gibbs  to  ask  those 
who  claim  the  right  to  condemn  and  punish,  to  specify 
which  of  these  widely  different  offences  he  has  commit- 
ted,— which  of  the  charges  he  is  bound  to  answer.  He 
has  the  right,  and  every  other  candidate,  for  this  or 
any  other  Professorship,  present  or  future,  has  the 
right,  to  be  distinctly  informed  what  religious  qualifi- 
cations we  require,  and  how  they  are  to  be  established. 

Should  we  hereafter  become  a  more  conspicuous 
and  authoritative  body  than  we  yet  have  been,  it  will 
be  not  a  little  im^Dortant  to  the  World  of  Thought  and 
Letters,  to  know  our  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  to 
understand  from  us  intelligibly,  how  we  ascertain  and 
identify  those  we  reject  and  brand  as  unfit  to  teach. 
The  selection  of  the  particular  dogmas  which  are  to 
compose  that  standard,  and  the  exact  definition  of 
each,  may  possibly  task  somewhat  the  industry  and 
acuteness  of  some  of  us.  We  must  define  not  only 
the  creed,  the  series  of  dogmas,  to  which  we  re- 
quire assent,  but  also  the  necessary  degree  and  evi- 
dence of  that  assent.  Shall  it  be  only  formal,  as 
in  some  English  institutions,  or  must  it  be  "  ex  animo  ? " 
and  shall  the  habitual  or  occasional  attendance  of  the 
candidate  at  some  j)rescribed  place  of  worship,  be  taken 
as  a  sufficient  compliance  with  our  standard  ?  Is  there 
no  danger  that  parents  may  distrust  the  College,  where 
theological  conformity  real  or  pretended,  wins  the  pro- 
fessor's chair, — and  that  students  themselves,  of  differing 
faith,  may  question  decisions  on  academic  rank,  by 
teachers  who  gain  by  such  means  the  right  to  decide  ? 

But  here  it  may  be  said,  that  exclusion  from 
office  is  not  punishment, — that   a  Trustee    voting  to 

3 


84 

exclude,  only  exercises  his  inherent  right  to  select  whom 
he  thinks  fit, — and  that  if  he  deem  a  heretic  unfit,  be- 
cause of  his  heresy,  he  may  lawfully  vote  against  such 
heretic,  and  that  this  is  not  a  punishment  of  heresy. 

This  common-place  of  intolerance  has  long  been 
abandoned.  Our  criminal  law  recognizes  exclusion 
from  office  as  one  of  the  penalties  of  crime.  If  he  who 
would  obtain  a  place  of  honor  or  profit  but  for  his 
heresy,  is  lawfully  excluded  from  it  by  his  heresy,  the 
law  punishes  him  for  that  heresy.  If  the  law  permit 
a  secular  College  like  ours,  not  created  to  promote  any 
particular  creed,  to  exclude  a  heretic  from  its  Professor- 
ships, the  law  in  that  mode  j^unishes  the  heretic. 

True,  we  no  longer  punish  by  the  writ  "  de  haere- 
tico^'' — for  that  went  out  of  the  legal  world,  the  very 
year  the  Habeas  Corpus  came  into  it, — but  we  do  in  fact 
punish,  quite  as  severely, — in  another  mode,' — by  pro- 
fessional, civil,  and  social  degradation. 

But  I  go  further.  I  claim  that  even  if  our  Board 
could  agree  upon,  and  could  lawfully  and  safely  estab- 
lish, and  could  permanently  maintain  its  tripartite  theo- 
logical standard, — and  even  if  Wolcott  Gibbs,  after 
full  information,  previous  notice,  and  fair  trial,  had 
been  duly  convicted  of  non-conformity  to  its  provi- 
sions,— it  would  still  be  our  duty  to  elect  him  to  the 
vacant  Professorship,  as  being  best  qualified  to  per- 
form an  important  portion  of  the  duty  of  education, 
which  we  profess  to  perfoi-m.  Nay,  more,  I  claim, 
that  even  if  our  College  existed  only  as  an  organ  of 
the  Episcopal  Church, — were  it  already  and  avowedly 
nothing  but  a  preparatory  school  for  her  theological 
seminaries, — were  it  created  expressly  to  train  up 
learned  men  to  fight  Unitarianism  itself, — even  tlien 
it  would  be  our  duty  and  our  true  policy,  to  select 


35 

Mm,  as  tlie  best  and  ablest  mau  to  fill  the  chair  of 
Chemistry,  without  reference  in  any  way  to  his  views 
on  the  Trinity,  or  any  other  point  of  theology. 

For  surely  it  is  as  much  the  duty  of  a  "  Church 
College,"  as  of  any  other,  to  do  best  whatever  it  pro- 
fesses to  do, — to  teach,  as  thoroughly  as  any  irreligious 
institution,  all  it  professes  to  teach.  A  heretic  or  an 
infidel  might  not  be  selected,  in  such  a  College,  to 
teach  Ecclesiastical  History  or  Moral  Philosophy,  for 
the  reason  that  his  religious  belief,  or  want  of  belief, 
might  prevent  his  teaching  what  the  Church  holds 
true  ;  but  in  the  sciences  purely  physical,  the  religious 
creed  of  the  professor  would  be  wholly  irrelevant  and 
unimportant. 

For  what  proposition  can  be  stated  or  imagined, 
in  any  department  of  Physical  Science,  in  which  Trini- 
tarians and  Unitarians,  as  such,  can  possibly  disagree? 
They  differ  only  as  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture  on  a 
single  point, — momentous,  no  doubt,  to  the  individual 
believer, — but  wholly  sej^arated  from  material  science. 
The  subjects  are  wide  apai't  as  Earth  and  Heaven.  The 
united  skill  of  the  whole  theolos-ical  world,  cannot  find 
a  statement,  proposition  or  theory  in  Chemistry  or  Natu- 
ral Philosophy,  which  conflicts,  in  any  degree,  with  the 
teaching  of  the  Church,  on  any  subject  whatever, — 
not  one,  which,  by  any  j)Ossibility,  can  be  called  Ortho- 
dox, rather  than  Unitarian. 

For  the  attributes  of  God,  whether  existing  in 
Trinity  or  in  Unity,  are  wholly  supernatural  and  extra- 
natural,  infinitely  above,  and  beyond,  and  away  from 
the  material  world  and  all  its  laws.  Who,  without 
the  extremest  irreverence,  could  apply  a  material  law 
to  the  Divine  Majesty  ?  Who  would  seek  to  penetrate, 
by  philosophical  analysis,  the  impenetrable,  invisible, 
unapproachable  elements  of  the  Tri-Une  Deity  ? 


36 

That  it  might  be  important  to  the  j)roper  teaching 
of  Physical  Science,  that  the  teacher  should  believe  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  I  might  admit. 
Fortified  by  that  belief,  the  devout  and  earnest  student 
of  Nature,  not  only  finds  in  the  vast  and  varied  har- 
monies of  the  universe,  overwhelming  proof  of  the  wis- 
dom and  power  of  the  Deity,  but  reads  in  the  very 
footprints  of  His  Creation,  the  majestic  concord  be- 
tween his  Works  and  his  Word.  But  can  all  that 
philosophy  ever  discovered,  that  conclave  or  hierarchy 
ever  decreed,  bring  within  our  feeble  vision,  even  a 
glimpse  of  the  awful  personality  of  God, — of  the  Eter- 
nal Co-existence  of  the  Three  in  One  ? 

How  vain  then,  these  attempts  to  mingle  the  mys- 
teries of  heaven  with  the  studies  of  earth  !  "  Render 
unto  Ca3sar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's."  Let  sacred 
truths  be  taught  by  our  pious  and  learned  theologians, 
at  the  seminaries,  which  a  wise  separation  of  the 
Church  from  the  State,  has  expressly  set  aj^art  for  the 
purpose, — but  let  them  not  distort,  disturb  or  disfigure 
the  human  studies,  with  which  they  have  no  connection 
or  afiinity.  Discourses  on  the  Trinity,  as  deduced 
from  the  Sacred  Writings,  will  always  be  reverently 
and  profitably  received  at  the  proper  place,  but  where 
is  the  class  in  Chemistry  that  would  listen  to  them  for 
a  moment?  Who  can  name  the  chemist,  that  ever 
sought  to  influence  the  religious  faith  of  his  j^tupils? 
Do  we  believe  that  in  the  thirty  years,  in  which  De. 
Kenwiok  filled  our  chair  of  Chemistry,  he  ever  ad- 
dressed a  word  to  his  pupils  on  the  Trinity  or  the 
Unity, — or  that  De.  Gibbs,  in  his  five  years  at  the  Free 
Academy,  ever  wandered  so  far  away  from  his  legiti- 
mate pursuits?  Rely  uj^on  it,  the  task  of  pursuing  and 
efficiently  teaching  his  rapidly  expanding  Science,  with 


37 

its  widely  extending  ramifications  and  magnificent 
generalizations, — will  leave  the  Professor  of  Chemistry 
but  little  time  or  appetite  for  controversial  Theology. 

But  it  is  said,  that  the  mere  example  of  a  Professor 
of  commanding  intellect  and  persuasive  style,  reputed 
to  disregard  a  fundamental  dogma  of  the  Church,  must 
be  dangerous,  in  leading  his  pupils  to  like  disregard. 
If  this  be  true,  where  shall  we  stop  ?  He  will  be  danger- 
ous if  allowed  to  teach  or  live  within  our  hearino:,  or 
any  where  within  our  community.  What  shall  we  do  ? 
The  earnest,  consistent  orthodoxy  of  the  middle  ages 
knew  what  to  do.  It  did  not  allow  John  Huss  to  wan- 
der at  large,  to  corrupt  the  world.  It  burned  him  at 
the  stake,  and  threw  his  ashes  into  the  Rhine. 

The  revolutions  and  constitutions  of  these  later 
centuries,  have  somewhat  modified  this  process.  We 
do  not  burn.  We  only  brand.  We  only  set  our  mark 
upon  our  noblest  son,  and  leave  him  to  bear  through 
life  the  dishonoring  imprint. 

For  who  will  take  what  we  thus  degrade  ?  Is  the 
solemn  adjudication  of  a  Board  like  ours  to  pass  for 
nothing?  What  is  lawful  and  wise  for  us,  must  be 
lawful  and  wise  for  all  of  inferior  grade.  The  heretic 
banished  from  our  walls,  cannot  and  must  not  expect 
aid  or  comfort  elsewhere.  If  dangerous  here,  sur- 
rounded by  the  watchful  care  of  our  united  orthodoxy, 
will  he  not  be  doubly  dangerous,  in  seats  of  learning 
less  vigilantly  guarded  ?  Ought  not  the  Free  Academy, 
with  its  four  hundred  students  now  exposed  to  his  bane- 
ful influence,  to  turn  him  at  once  adrift  ?  What  other 
academy,  or  school,  or  seat  of  learning,  of  any  grade  or 
sort,  can  rightfully  harbor  or  uphold  him  ?  How  can 
it  do  so,  without  condemning  us  as  bigots,  and  express- 
ing its  immeasurable  scorn  of  our  example  ? 

.5804.51) 


88 

This,  tlien,  is  our  position.  In  tlie  middle  of  this 
nineteenth  century, — in  the  State  of  New-York, — 
under  a  Constitution  guaranteeing  equal  rights  of  con- 
science to  all  men,  a  few  members  of  our  Board  of 
Trustees  assume  the  right  to  adjudicate,  and  do  adju- 
dicate, that  he  who  does  not  believe  the  Tri-Une  Ex- 
istence of  the  Supreme  Being,  is  not  a  Christian,  and 
thereby  is  disqualified  from  teaching  Chemical  Science. 

The  decision  covers,  not  only  Wolcott  Gibes,  but 
all  his  sect, — for  if  he  be  not  fit  to  teach,  what  Unita- 
rian is  ?  and  thus,  we  presume  to  excommunicate  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  our  fellow-men  and  fellow-schol- 
ars, and  practically  prohibit  them  from  teaching  here, 
or  elsewhere,  or  any  where. 

Are  we  quite  prepared, — do  we  really  feel  strong 
enough, — to  proclaim  this  decision  to  the  American 
people  and  the  world  ?  Not  to  mention  the  several 
presidents  of  these  United  States,  professing  the  form 
of  Christian  faith  we  now  proscribe, — not  to  point  to 
Everett  and  Bancroft,  on  whom  orthodox  Oxford 
lavished  its  highest  academic  honors,  nor  to  hosts  of 
others,  now  living,  bright  among  the  brightest  gems  of 
history,  and  poetry,  and  science  and  art,  what  shall  we 
do  with  the  deathless  works  of  dead  and  buried  Uni- 
tarians ?  Shall  our  College  library  longer  he  polluted 
by  the  "  Paradise  Lost "  of  that  heretic,  John  Milton  ? 
Shall  our  tender  youth  be  dazzled  and  seduced  by  the 
undermining  "  Principia  "  of  that  Unitarian  astronomer, 
Sir  Isaac  Newton  ?  Shall  Law  be  learned  from  Grotius, 
— heretical  Hugo  Grotius, — who  taught  humanity  to 
man, — mitigated  the  violence  of  war, — brought  justice 
into  the  family  of  nations, — and  rescued  the  ocean  from 
bondage, — or  shall  Ave  remand  him  to  the  prison,  to 
which  his  dissent  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Synod  of 


39 

Dort  had  sent  him  ?  Should  we  not  reform  onr  scheme 
of  education  at  once,  and  no  longer  teach  our  students 
to  venerate  names  like  these  ? 

But  we  are  told,  that,  after  all,  the  College  must  be 
subject  to  some  one  governing  sect,  and  that  all  the 
American  Colleges  are,  in  fact,  sectarian.  This  ought 
not  to  be  true, — but  if  it  is,  it  will  hel])  to  explain  their 
slender  success,  when  compared  with  the  European  In- 
stitutions not  sectarian,  and  why  our  sons  are  obliged 
to  leave  our  narrow  halls,  to  find  adequate  instruction 
in  the  more  catholic  and  comprehensive  institutions 
of  France  and  Germany. 

But  it  is  not  true,  and  certainly  not  to  the  severe  ex- 
tent to  which  sectarian  exclusion  is  now  threatened.  We 
know,  that  many  of  the  American  Colleges  have  select- 
ed, and  do  select  professors  differing  widely,  in  religious 
tenets,  from  the  majority  of  the  governing  trustees. 
Presbyterian  Princeton  j)laced  in  one  of  her  scientific 
chairs  a  Professor  with  no  religion  at  all.  Episcopalians 
are  tolerated  in  Congregational  Harvard,  Yale  and 
.  Union.  Six  of  the  seventeen  Professors  at  Harvard,  and 
three  of  the  Tutors,  are  of  denominations  other  than 
Unitarian,  some  of  them,  indeed,  most  earnest  in  their 
orthodoxy.  An  eminent  Unitarian  divine  is  associated 
with  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  the 
Canadian  University,  established  by  the  British 
Crown.  A  learned  and  accomplished  Jew  was 
trusted  by  one  of  the  theological  Seminaries  in  this 
very  city,  to  teach  its  students  the  true  reading  of  the 
Prophets, — and  should  we  ourselves  perchance  awake 
to  the  necessity  of  qualifying  our  youth  to  meet  the 
Asiatic  Exodus  now  pouring  in  upon  our  Pacific  coast, 
would  we  exclude  from  the  Chinese  Professorship  every 
follower  of  Confucius  ?    How  are  we  to  keep  up  with 


40 

that  great  Anglo-American  race,  seen  by  tlie  pro- 
phetic eye  of  our  royal  founder,  if  we  thus  narrow 
and  confine  our  vision  ?  and  what  a  spectacle  shall 
we  present  to  that  wide  and  widening  world,  for 
which  we  are  Trustees,  with  our  useless  millions  of 
mismanaored  wealth, — self-condemned  to  the  limits  of 
a  narrow  sectarianism,  and  copying  only  what  is  ob- 
solete and  defective  in  the  mediaeval  institutions,  we 
affect  to  imitate  ? 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  higher  and  far  more  seri- 
ous question  of  justice  and  morality,  involved  in  this 
proceeding, — for  I  insist,  that  the  proposed  exclusion 
of  Dr.  Gibbs  will  be,  not  only  unjust  to  the  students, 
— unjust  to  the  parents, — unjust  to  the  alumni, — but 
above  all,  and  in  the  highest  degree,  unjust  to  the 
State,  to  which  we  owe,  not  only  our  corporate  exist- 
ence and  consequent  obedience,  but  large  and  repeat- 
ed donations  of  land  and  money. 

The  history  of  the  century  just  closing,  shows  an 
incessant  stream  of  gifts,  not  only  from  the  infant 
Colony,  existing  at  our  birth,  but  from  the  State  since 
the  Revolution.  The  very  first  donation  by  the  colo- 
nial government,  was  three  thousand  four  hundred 
pounds, — then  exceeding  the  pecuniary  value  of  all 
the  donations  from  Trinity  Church,  with  the  further 
distinction,  that  while  the  lauds  given  by  the  Church 
had  been  given  to  the  Church  by  the  Crown,  the 
Colony  itself  had  earned  the  moneys  it  gave. 

The  State,  since  the  Revolution,  has  given  us  up- 
wards of  thirty-nine  thousand  dollars  in  money,  and 
lands  of  still  greater  value.  The  tract  once  known  as  the 
Botanic  Garden,  embracing  220  lots  in  the  centre  of  our 
island  city, — between  Fifth  and  Sixth  Avenues,  Forty- 
eighth  and  Fifty-First  streets, — is  now  worth  at  least 
four  hundred  thousand  dollars, — aflbrding  truly  a  fitting 


41 

site  for  that  broad,  liberal  and  comprehensive  univer- 
sity, so  needed  by  the  whole  American  world. 

It  is  not  unworthy  of  notice,  in  examining  the  course 
pursued  by  the  College  in  respect  to  science,  that  it 
got  this  very  land  from  the  State  in  1814,  under  the 
pretence  and  assurance  of  teaching,  encouraging,  and 
diffusing  science. 

The  State  granted  the  land  expressly  as  a  Botanic 
Garden,  the  College  gravely  submitting  to  the  condi- 
tion reserved  in  the  act,  to  deliver  "  at  least  one  healthy 
"  exotic  flower,  shrub,  or  plant,  of  every  kind  of  which 
"  they  should  have  more  than  one,  together  with  the 
"jar  or  vessel  containing  the  same,  to  the  Trustees  of 
"  each  of  the  other  Colleges  of  this  State,  who  shall 
"  apply  for  the  same  !  "  I  cannot  think  it  very  hand- 
some of  the  College  to  ask,  as  it  did  only  five  years 
afterwards,  to  be  released  from  this  duty.  It  was  but 
a  slender  return  for  such  a  heritage  ;  but  science  was 
forgotten,  and  flowers,  shrubs,  plants,  and  Botanic 
Garden  melted  into  thin  air,  like  the  "  pure  and  whole- 
some water"  so  notorious  in  our  legislative  history. 
But  the  land  with  its  hundreds  of  thousands  of  money 
value  yet  remains,  to  admonish  us,  that  we  owe  some- 
thing to  the  State,  if  not  to  science.  For  one  I  shall 
never  think  of  the  land,  without  hoping  that  a  proper 
instinct  may  sooner  or  later  lead  us  to  establish  a 
Botanical  Professoi-ship,  as  some  return  for  the  Botanic 
Garden  we  agreed  to  maintain  and  did  not. 

For  it  would  not  indelibly  disgrace  even  Columbia 
College,  to  teach  Botany.  Classic  Oxford  is  not  asham- 
ed to  teach  it.  On  the  far  distant  Black  Sea,  Odessa 
boasts  a  noble  garden.  Another  flourishes  at  Upsala, 
on  the  frozen  shores  of  the  Baltic, — and  even  in  our 
own  benighted  hemis23here,  the  genius  and  energy  of 


42 

Dr.  Ryeeson,  the  efficient  superintendent  of  Education 
of  Upper  Canada,  has  surrounded  the  great  School  at 
Toronto  with  eight  acres  devoted  to  Botanical  Science. 
Canada  eclipsing  New- York,  may  sound  strange, — but 
stranger  things  have  been  seen. 

But  it  may  be  said,  and  in  truth  it  is  loudly  said, 
that  notwithstanding  these  generous  donations  from 
the  State,  and  the  reasonable  implication  that  all 
its  inhabitants  should  enjoy  equal  liberty  in  the 
College,  "  the  Episcopalianism "  of  the  College  is 
"  an  established  fact,"  and  that  the  Trustees  have  the 
right,  and  are  bound  in  duty  to  keep  it  Episcopalian, 
— in  other  words,  to  employ  its  funds  and  powers 
exclusively  to  support  and  advance  the  Episcopal 
Church.  This  is  the  claim  which  the  accredited  news- 
paper organ  in  this  city  of  a  portion  of  the  Church, 
expressly  asserts  for  it.  Nothing  can  be  more  false  than 
this  assumption,  opposed  as  it  is,  at  once,  to  history, 
law,  usage,  and  justice. 

For  what  is  meant,  l:>y  saying  that  the  College  is 
"Episcopalian?"  Must  it  not  mean,  that  a  majority 
of  its  Trustees  are  and  always  must  be  Episcopalian  ? 
that  its  teachers  must  be  selected,  and  its  teaching 
directed  with  a  single  eye  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
doctrines,  discij^line  and  ceremonial  of  that  parti- 
cular Church  ?  Can  an  Episcopalian  College  omit 
from  its  course  of  study,  the  proofs  of  the  Apostolical 
Succession,  and,  above  all,  of  the  inherent,  paramount 
authority  of  the  Church  itself? 

The  scrupulous  care  with  which  the  charter  divided, 
among  five  differing  sects,  the  ecclesiastical  authority 
in  the  Board,  and  the  superadded  vigilance  of  the 
Dutch  Church  to  secure  a  Professorship  to  guard  its 
peculiar  doctrines  from  invasion,  I  have  already  stated. 


48 

How  tlien  does  the  Episcopal  Cburcli  derive  its  exclu- 
sive right  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  prevailing  errors,  on  this  subject, 
that  the  College  was  exclusively  endowed  l^y  the 
Episcopal  Church,  and  agreed  in  return  to  maintain  an 
exclusively  Episcopalian  character.  An  examination 
of  the  charter  disproves  this  at  once. 

It  states  two  facts, — one,  that  Trinity  Church  had 
agreed  to  furnish  lands  for  the  College  "  worth  £3,000 
and  upwards," — the  other,  that  the  Colony  had  con- 
tributed .£3,448.  For  these  two  separate  donations,  it 
reserves  two  separate  equivalents. 

The  equivalent  to  the  Church  is  defined  by  two 
clauses,  of  which  the  first  is  this : — 

"  In  consideration  of  such  grant,  the  President  of 
the  said  College,  for  the  time  being,  shall  for  ever 
hereafter  be  a  member  of  and  in  communion  with 
the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,"  and 
the  second  is  this  : — 

"  There  shall  be  for  ever  hereafter,  public  morning 
and  evening  service  constantly  ]3erformed  in  the  said 
College,  morning  and  evening  for  ever,  by  the  Presi- 
dent, Fellows,  Professors,  or  Tutors,  or  one  of  tliem^ 
according  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  by  law  established,  or  such  a  collection  of  prayers 
out  of  said  Liturgy  and  a  Collect  peculiar  for  the 
College,  as  shall  be  approved  of  from  time  to  time 
by  the  Governors "  (now  Trustees)  "  of  said  College 
or  the  major  part  of  any  fifteen  or  more  of  them." 

These  two  clauses  embrace  the  sum  total  of  the 
equivalent  reserved  to  the  Church.  The  charter  does 
not  grant  to  the  Church,  e^'eu  a  shadow  of  authority  to 
appoiut  the  President,  or  any  Professor  or  other 
officer,  or  to  direct  or  interfere  with  the  studies  in  any 


44 

manner,  still  less  to  establish  any  theological  or  sec- 
tarian standard,  or  to  require  any  test  or  form  of  faith. 
On  the  contrary,  for  the  very  purpose  of  guarding 
against  any  undue  influence  of  the  Episcopalian  Presi- 
dent, it  expressly  empowers  the  Trustees  exclusively  to 
direct  "  what  books  shall  be  publicly  read  and  taught 
in  the  College,"  and  to  appoint  all  Professors  and 
Tutors. 

But  the  charter  did  reserve  to  the  Colony,  then 
governed  by  the  Crown,  an  equivalent  of  priceless 
value— one  that  secured  to  the  College  for  ever,  the 
inestimable  right  of  religious  freedom.  This  great  con- 
servative feature  is  found  in  that  noble  clause  of  the 
charter,  which  declares  that  no  ordinance,  order  or 
by-law  of  the  College  shall  extend  to  "  exclude  any 
person  of  any  religious  denomination  whatever,  from 
equal  liberty  and  advantage  of  education,  or  from  any 
of  the  degrees,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  the 
said  College,  ooi  account  of  ids  particular  tenets  in 
matters  of  religion^'' — and  thus  this  great  j)ublic  in- 
stitution founded  for  all  British  America,  came  into 
the  world,  breathing  at  its  very  birth  the  pure  and 
blessed  air  of  religious  liberty,  the  vital  element  and 
condition  of  its  being.  Called  into  life,  in  an  eventful 
age,  just  after  the  Protestant  house  of  Hanover  had 
repelled  an  invasion  to  re-establish  the  civil  and  re- 
ligious despotism  of  the  Stuarts,  the  Whig  Ministry 
purposely  imprinted  on  its  charter  this  all -preserving 
clause,  for  ever  prohibiting  the  subjection  of  the  Col- 
lege to  any  ecclesiastical  authority. 

But  strangely  enough,  the  charter  was  disfigured 
by  one  single  feature  of  intolerance,  standing,  too,  in  cu- 
rious opposition  to  the  present  assum23tion.  As  a  mere 
political  safeguard,  and  to  prevent  the  possibility  of 


45 

Jacobite  influence,  even  in  this  distant  colony,  it  requir- 
ed eacli  Trustee,  not  only  to  take  an  oath  to  supj^ort 
the  Protestant  succession,  but  to  subscribe  a  declaration 
of  his  disbelief  in  Transubstantiation, — so  that  the  only 
religious  body  expressly  excluded  from  the  control  of 
the  College,  was  that  which  maintained  the  doctrines 
and  authority  of  the  See  of  Kome. 

During  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  from  1776  to 
1783,  the  College  was  trodden  down,  and  disappeared. 
But  on  the  restoration  of  peace,  the  State  sought  it  out 
and  brought  it  anew  to  life,  renovating  however,  in  yet 
larger  measure,  every  feature  of  its  religious  freedom. 
The  first  section  of  the  State  Statute  of  April  13th, 
1787,  swept  away  every  vestige  of  sectarian  authority: 
first,  by  enacting  that  no  joersons  should  be  Trustees, 
"  in  virtue  of  any  offices,  characters  or  descriptions, 
whatever,"  thereby  cutting  ofi",  at  a  blow,  the  heads 
of  the  five  different  sects :  next,  by  dispensing  with 
the  oath  and  declaration,  thereby  admitting  Roman 
Catholics  to  equal  rights  with  their  fellow-citizens: 
next,  by  rendering  eligible  as  President,  Cso  far  as  the 
State  could  lawfully  do  it,)  any  person  of  any  religious 
denomination :  and  lastly,  by  dispensing  with  any  par- 
ticular form  of  prayer  in  the  College. 

The  State  then  appointed  twenty-nine  individuals 
Trustees  of  the  College,  to  be  gradually  reduced,  by 
death  or  resignation,  to  twenty-four,  the  present  num- 
ber. Of  these  twenty-nine,  only  sixteen  were  Episco- 
palians, and  among  the  other  thirteen  was  a  learned 
Jewish  Rabbi,  Gershom  Seixas,  who  remained  for 
many  years  an  honored  and  respected  member  of  the 
Board. 

Now  I  do  not  refer  to  this  act  of  the  legislature,  to 
approve  any  part  of  it,  which  sought  to  discharge  the 


46 

College  from  any  obligation,  legal  or  moral,  it  owed  to 
Trinity  Churcli ;  but  simply  to  show  liow  groundless  is 
tlie  pretence,  that  the  law  has  made  the  College  Epis- 
copalian, and  how  fully  the  State  has  intended  to  free  it 
from  sectarian  shackles. 

The  Episcopalianism  of  the  President,  and  the  form 
of  prayer  in  the  College,  had  however  been  secured,  not 
only  by  the  charter,  but  by  express  conditions  contain- 
ed in  the  conversance  by  Trinity  Church  of  the  College 
site.  The  State  had  therefore  neither  leo-al  nor  consti- 
tutional  authority  thus  to  disj)ense  with  these  conditions, 
and  for  one,  I  trust  that  the  College  will  always  respect 
not  only  their  legal,  but  their  fair  moral  obligation,  and 
will  honestly  perform  them,  in  their  true  intent  and 
spirit,  without  diminution  or  evasion.  I  hope  that  the 
President  may  always  be  an  Episcopalian,  and  that  the 
prescribed  form  of  prayer  may  always  be  retained.  But 
beyond  that  point  I  contend,  that  neither  the  legal  nor 
the  moral  rights  of  Trinity  Church  or  any  other  Church, 
extend  an  inch. 

Statistically  it  may  be  true,  that  a  majority  of  our 
Board  may  be  Episcopalians,  but  that  fact  no  more 
makes  the  College  Episcopalian,  than  a  majority  being 
Democrats  would  make  it  Democratic.  The  accidental 
preponderance  of  one  or  another  sect  or  party,  would  no 
more  authorize  a  Trustee  of  that  sect  or  party  to  gratify 
his  prejudices,  religious  or  political,  at  the  expense  of 
others  having  rights  as  sacred  as  his  own,  than  it  would 
to  convert  the  pecuniary  property  of  the  College  to  his 
private  use. 

But  the  legal  prohibition  of  religious  proscription, 
is  by  no  means  confined  to  this  single  clause  in  the 
charter.  On  the  22d  of  March,  1810,  the  legislature 
on  the  petition  of  the  College,  incorjDorated  it  anew,  by 


47 

a  single  act  consolidating  and  defining  its  powers  and 
duties.  The  Board  of  Trustees  named  l^y  that  act,  again 
contained  a  large  infusion  of  members  not  Episcopalian. 
Not  to  mention  those  eminent  divines,  Doctor  Livings- 
ton, Doctor  Mason  and  Doctor  Romeyn,  whom  do  we 
find  but  Oliver  Wolcott,  a  Unitarian,  and  grandfather 
of  Wolcott  Gibbs  ! — and  to  him  and  his  associates  did 
the  State  then  commit  the  care  of  the  College,  the  di- 
rection of  its  studies  and  choice  of  its  Professors.  The 
act  also  condensed  and  invigorated  the  anti-sectarian 
clause  of  the  charter,  by  directing  that  none  of  the  or- 
dinances or  by-laws  of  the  College  should  "  make  the 
religious  tenets  of  any  person,  a  condition  of  admission 
to  any  privilege  or  office  in  the  said  College." 

Nor  was  this  all.  The  State  immediately  after 
achieving  its  independence,  passed  a  general  law  for 
regulating  Colleges  and  Academies,  which  broadly  de- 
clares that  "  no  President  or  Professor  shall  be  inelio:i- 
ble  for  or  by  reason  of  any  religious  tenets  that  he 
may  or  shall  profess," — a  practical  application  only,  of 
that  noble  provision  in  its  Constitution  of  IT 77,  that 
"the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  freedom 
and  worship  without  discrimination,  shall  for  ever  here- 
after be  allowed  within  this  State,  to  all  mankind."  Need 
we  add,  that  in  every  successive  revision  of  the  laws. 
this  great  declaratory  provision  shines  out  in  living 
light, — its  very  diction  gaining  strength  and  compre- 
hensiveness, at  every  step  ? 

It  now  stands  a  fundamental  portion  of  the  law  of 
the  land, — which  all  good  men  obey, — summed  up  in 
these  few  but  signal  words : — 

"No  Eeligious  Qualification  or  Test  shall  be 
required  from  any  Trustee,  President,  Principal,  or 
other  oflicer   of  an  incorporated  college  or  academy, 


48 

or  as  a  condition  of  admission  to  any  privilege  iu  the 
same." 

Tlie  constant  and  uninterrupted  current  of  legis- 
lation from  1754  to  the  present  hour,  shows  con- 
clusively, not  only  that  the  law  has  not  made  the 
College  exclusively  Episcopalian,  but  has  expressly 
forbidden  it  to  be  so,  and  has  guarded  the  equal  rights 
of  every  other  denomination,  by  every  form  of  speech 
known  to  human  law. 

Nor  has  the  College  by  any  act  or  usage  of  its  own, 
adopted  a  sectarian  character.  Not  only  have  all  its  offi- 
cers constantly  denied  the  allegation,  but  the  College 
itself  by  its  own  deliberate  corporate  act  has  sigually 
disproved  it.  More  than  forty  years  ago,  its  Board 
of  Trustees  created  the  office  of  "Provost,"  for  the 
very  purpose  of  committing  to  a  distinguished  Cal- 
vinist  divine,  under  that  title,  the  real  authority  of  the 
President.  An  Episcopal  President  nominally  remain- 
ed, to  satisfy  the  legal  condition  of  the  conveyance 
from  Trinity  Church,  but  Dr.  Masojst,  the  Provost, — 
whom  no  one  will  suspect  of  E23iscopalianism, — dis- 
charged all  the  presidential  duties  not  merely  formal. 
I  cannot  say,  that  the  good  faith  of  the  transaction  is 
particularly  apparent,  but  it  shows  how  completely  the 
College  intended  to  divest  itself  of  any  sectarian  char- 
acter. 

The  office  of  Provost  died  with  De.  Mason,  and  the 
actual  Presidency  of  the  College  has  since  been  honestly 
filled,  as  it  ought  to  be,  by  Episcopalians,  but  never  by 
any  incumbent  willing  to  use  his  place  for  any  sectarian 
purpose.  I  need  not  tell  you  that  Cuaeles  KmG,  the 
present  upright  and  honored  head  of  the  College,  long 
a  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  like  others  of 
us,  anxious  for  its  advancement  in  all  proper  modes, 


49 

stands  foremost  among  those,  who   resist  this   medi- 
tated assault  upon  religious  liberty. 

But  further  still.  The  Trustees,  as  a  body,  by  their 
own  official  act,  have  distinctly  passed  upon  this  very 
question.  Drawing  a  distinction  between  the  sciences 
which  may  be,  and  those  which  cannot  be  connected, 
directly  or  indirectly,  with  religious  truth,  they  have 
adopted  a  Statute,  now  standing  in  full  force  on  their 
records,  which  provides  that, 

^'■Any  religious  denomination  who  shall  endow  a 
Professorship  in  the  Classics,  in  Political,  Mathemat- 
ical or  Physical  Science^  or  in  the  Literature  of  any  of 
the  ancient  or  modern  Languages,  to  the  amount  of 
twenty  thousand  dollars,  shall /or  6^'6'r  liave  the  right  of 
nominating  a  ^yrofessor  for  the  same,  subject  to  the  ap- 
probation of  the  Trustees,  who  shall  hold  his  office  l:)y 
the  same  tenure  as  the  other  Professors  of  the  Col- 
lege." 

INTow  will  any  one  pretend  that  after  an  invitation 
like  this,  we  could  reasonably  or  honorably  reject  the 
nominee  of  a  religious  denomination,  fitted  in  all  other 
respects  for  such  a  Professorshij),  for  the  sole  reason 
that  he  belonged  to  that  very  denomination?  Who 
would  not  exclaim,  that  we  carried  toleration  on  our 
lips,  but  intolerance  in  our  hearts  ?  and-surely  we  can 
not  prescribe  one  rule  of  faith  for  Professors  thus  se 
lected,  and  another  for  those  we  select  ourselves. 

The  arrogant  assumption  that  "  Unitarians  have  no 
religion  at  all,"  and  are  not  entitled  to  be  called  a  "  reli- 
gious denomination,"  I  must  really  pass  over,  as  too  ab- 
surd for  grave  discussion.  The  Jews  who  worship  the 
God  of  Abraham  and  Moses  and  David,  and  believe  in 
the  Old  Testament,  are  surely  a  "  religious  denomina- 
tion,"— and  can  we  deny  that  title  to  Unitarians,  who 

4 


-    50 

worship  the  same  God,  and  believe  both  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New  ? 

But  I  hear  it  asserted  that  even  if  all  this  be  true, 
— even  if  the  law  and  our  contract  with  the  State  plain- 
ly prohibit  this  religious  proscription,  both  may  never- 
theless be  safely  and  honorably  evaded  and  nullified, 
— that  if  any  Trustee  conscientiously  think  a  Unitarian 
unfit  as  such,  to  be  a  Professor,  he  may  lawfully  take 
the  fact  into  account  in  giving  his  vote,  inasmuch  as  the 
vote  need  not  be  preceded  by  any  by-law,  or  any  de- 
claration of  the  motive  which  governs  it, — that  be- 
cause this  motive  is  secret  -and  incapable  of  proof, 
it  will  be  presumed  to  be  sudh  as  the  law  allows, — 
and  that  no  one  has  any  right  to  say,  that  the  vote  was 
not  given  exclusively  with  reference  to  the  fitness  of 
the  candidate,  apart  from  any  religious  test  or  qualifi- 
cation. Summed  up  in  short,  it  is  that  the  "  higher 
law "  of  conscience  overrides  the  obligation  of  any 
human  law,  or  the  solemnity  of  any  human  contract, 
and  justifies  their  violation, — if  the  act  be  known  only 
to  him  who  commits  it.  But  if  conscience  demand  or 
justify  such  a  vote,  it  equally  demands  an  ordinance  or 
by-law  establishing  the  qualification  which  governs  the 
vote, — and  if  the  one  would  be  a  violation  of  law  and 
duty,  is  not  the  other  still  less  excusable  ? 

.But  we  have  little  occasion  for  these  nice  distinc- 
tions, for  we  hear  it  avowed  in  unmistakeable  terms  by 
members  of  our  body,  that  with  their  present  convic- 
tions, they  cannot  and  will  not  vote  for  a  Unitarian. 
They  further  distinctly  declare,  that  they  would  vote 
for  WoLCOTT  GiBBS  for  the  present  Professorship,  if  he 
were  a  member  of  Trinity  Church,  or  of  the  Dutch 
Church,  but  that,  as  at  present  advised,  they  must  and 
'\  ill  vote  against  him,  because  he  is  a  Unitarian. 


51 

Now  on  this  state  of  facts,  will  anyone  deny,  that 
he  is  excluded  from  the  Professorship,  in  the  very 
words  of  the  charter,  '■'■on  account  of  Ids  'particular 
tenets  in  matters  of  religion  ?" 

If  he  would  be  qualified  for  the  place,  by  being  a 
member  of  Trinity  Church,  but  is  disqualified  by  being  a 
Unitarian,  is  not  this  the  requiring  a  ^'' religioiis  quali- 
fication^^ which  the  general  law  says  shall  not  be  re- 
quired ? 

If  he  would  be  admitted  to  the  oflice  of  Professor 
if  a  member  of  Trinity  Church,  and  is  not  admitted 
because  he  attends  another  Church,,  is  not  this  "  a  con^ 
dition  of  admission  to  an  office"  in  the  College,  which 
the  charter  of  1810  prohibits? 

I  revert  then  to  the  fundamental  proposition  with 
which  I  commenced,  that  as  Trustees  of  Columbia  Col- 
lege, we  hold  our  offices  and  the  property  committed 
to  us  by  the  State,  only  in  trust,  for  certain  definite 
objects  distinctly  defined  in  our  charter,  and  for  none 
other.  Neither  the  promotion  of  any  creed,  nor  the 
suppression  of  any  heresy,  is  among  those  objects,  and 
to  vote  with  a  view  to  them,  is  a  breach  of  trust  and 
an  abuse  of  power. 

Rely  upon  it,  the  community  never  can  be  con- 
vinced, that  if  WoLCOTT  Gibbs  be  now  rejected,  he  is  not 
rejected  by  reason  of  his  religious  tenets, — still  less 
that  their  moral  sense  can  be  satisfied,  that  a  mere 
by-law  or  resolution  to  do  a  wrong,  which  leaves  room 
for  reconsideration  until  acted  on,  can  be  worse  than 
the  wrong  itself.  To  maintain  that  although  a  by-law 
excluding  a  heretic  would  be  unlawful,  a  direct  vote 
excluding  him  for  heresy  would  be  lawful,  will  re 
quire  a  casuistry  so  subtle,  as  to  be  generally  uniiit<'' 
ligible. 


62 

The  fundamental  policy  of  the  law  in  favor  of  ab- 
solute religious  freedom,  is  not  lightly  to  be  evaded. 
Every  device,  however  ingenious,  that  tends  to  under- 
mine it,  will  have  to  pass  the  ordeal  of  a  stern  and  hostile 
scrutiny,  and  I  fear  not  only  for  the  College  but  for 
the  Church,  that  those,  who  are  ever  ready  to  adopt 
any  outcry  against  Her  and  her  ministei'S,  will  assert 
in  simple  Saxon  terms,  that  the  present  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  tolerance  or  intolerance,  but  of  Right  and 
Wrong, — of  Good  Faith  and  Bad. 

I  believe  the  act,  if  consummated,  to  be  fraught 
with  mischief  and  danger,  not  only  to  the  College,  but 
the  Church  and  her  most  valued  interests.  I  know  that 
a  large  body  of  the  laity,  and  many  of  the  most  pious 
and  distinguished  of  the  clergy,  speak  of  it  with  the 
sternest  reprobation,  holding  that  even  religion  cannot 
afford  to  have  it  matter  of  discussion,  whether  the 
means  used  to  advance  it,  are  not  immoral  and  unlaw- 
ful. The  great  community  around  us  sees  and  can  see 
nothing,  but  the  plain  moral  obligation  of  the  law, — the 
ever  enduring  sanctity  of  the  contract,  which  none  can 
violate  or  evade,  without  becoming  a  by-word  and  re- 
proach. 

Nor  will  the  evil  end  here.  Science  will  feel  itself 
persecuted  and  insulted  in  one  of  her  purest  and 
noblest  votaries,  and,  however  unjustly,  will  attribute 
to  religion  a  secret  fear  of  the  studies  which  open  the 
great  book  of  nature.  The  cause  will  be  deemed  weak, 
that  thus  seems  to  shun  the  light.  Men  will  revert  to 
the  history  of  the  Church, — now  all  but  buried, — 
which  records  the  imprisonment  of  Galileo, — the  ex- 
communication of  Copernicus, — the  denunciation,  but 
just  withdrawn,  of  the  solar  system  as  heretical, — 
or  looking  still  further  back,  to  the  war  upon  the  Clas- 


53 

sics    tliemselves,    by    a    short-sighted,    half-educated 
clergy. 

The  world  was  rejoicing  in  the  belief,  that  the 
Church  was  growing  wiser, — that  Science  was  standing 
at  her  side,  the  chosen  champion,  the  ablest  ally  of 
Written  Revelation.  The  concord  so  happily  com- 
menced, was  the  bright,  the  distinguishing  feature  of 
this  our  day  and  time ;  why  rudely  dissolve  it  ?  Why 
lead  Religion  back,  into  the  gloom  of  by-gone 
ages  ?  Why  not  interweave  it  into  the  framework  of 
advancing  society?  Why  not  consecrate  and  share 
with  Man,  his  victories  over  Nature  ?  With  the  whole 
world  emancipating  its  institutions  from  needless 
shackles,  what  infatuation  leads  us  thus  to  fetter  ours  ? 
Why  blight  the  College  just  budding  into  usefulness, 
just  come  to  man's  estate  ?: 

But  there  would  be  no  end  to  the  reflections  which 
this  broader  view  of  the  subject  suggests,  and  I  must 
close.  Reared  at  another  institution,  and  not,  like 
yourself,  one  of  the  honored  alumni  of  this,  I  never- 
theless owe  her  my  best  affections,  my  most  devoted 
efforts.  Throughout  the  many  years  in  which  it  has  been 
my  pride  to  serve  her,  I  have  never  ceased  to  strive 
for  her  interest  and  her  honor.  On  an  occasion  like 
the  present,  it  was  not  possible,  with  any  adequate 
sense  of  official. responsibility,  to  refrain  from  exjDress- 
ing,  however  imperfectly,  the  views  naturally  arising 
of  the  vital  importance  of  the  questions  involved.  I 
trust  them  to  the  intelligence,  integrity,  and  conscien- 
tiousness of  those  with  whom  I  have  the  honor  to  act, 
in  the  confident  hope  that  the  differences  which  have 
divided  us,  may  ere  long  disappear, — that  we  may  all 
be  found  cordially  united  in  the  grateful  labor  of  en- 
larging the  scope^  and  preserving  the  freedom  of  a 


54 

College,  so  plainly  iuteuded  by  the  sovereign  authority 
as  a  comprehensive  and  liberal  seat  of  learning, — that 
our  best  and  Highest  ambition  will  be,  to  rear  on  its 
foundations  a  broad  and  ever  enduring  fabric,  befitting 
our  rich  Metropolis,  our  powerful  State,  our  rapidly 
expanding  Empire. 

With  true  regard,  respectfully 

your  friend  and  colleague, 

SAMUEL  B.  RUGGLES. 


'^/^aaAiNd^wv 


vj<lOSANCElfj^ 

3 


^Aa3AINfl-3WV 


^UIBRARYQ^       ^^tllBRARYCk^ 


'^^OJI1V3JO'^        '^OdlWD-JO^ 


^OFCALIFO% 


^^AHvaan-i^ 


^OFCALIFO/?^ 


aWEUNIVER% 


.   , ^     ^   o 

<ril3DNV-S01^ 


,^WEUNlVER5-//i 


^lOSAN 

ft; 
O 


"%! 


<rii30NV-sm^ 


University  of  California  Library 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  bek 


r— ~ 
^ 


18 


W 


"^^AHvaaiH^ 


^IBRARY-Oc 


avaaii-^^      ^<?-; 


i\EUNIVER%       A^ll| 

T«        O 

i  I 


O        li- 


telJONVSOl^       % 


g^lUBRARYQ^      ^Ij 


^•JOJnVDJO^      '^l 


^  % 


v:. 


^^AHvaaiH^      ^<?; 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  196  266  9 


(//■;.. 


